Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
Dave
Shane Hudson. There is a fork too of ChessDB from the lying
plagiarist Pascal Georges who passes of work of mine as his own, as I
have documented at:
Anyway, the main reason for my post it to introduce a new feature in
ChessDB and I would be interested in comments from others about this.
Basically ChessDB has a tree window, like many databases (Scid,
ChessBase, Chess Assistant etc). But I've added code that will determine
if the difference in score between two moves is really real
('statistically significant') , or if it could be due to chance. (If you
toss a coin 20 times and it lands on heads 12 times and tails 8 times,
you can't deduce the coin is biased) - such a small difference can be
due to chance with only 20 tosses. In contrast, if it landed on the head
19 times and the tail only once, you be pretty sure it is biased.
It is assumed that the difference in score between two moves is not due
to chance if the probability of the observed (or any larger) difference
being due to chance, with no underlying reason, is less than 0.05.
See:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/t_search_tree.php
Some interesting observations can be seen looking at my database of 3.5
million games
1) 1.d4 scores better than 1.e4 with a p-value of less than 0.01. In
other words, the chance of the observed or any large score difference
being due to chance is less than 1%.
2) In my database, the opening move with the highest score is 1.Na3.
Despite the score being a lot higher than 1.e4 or 1.d4, this is *not*
statistically significant. In other words, whilst we can't say it 1.Na3
is any better or worst than 1.e4 or 1.d4, we can say that that there is
a high probability that the observed difference is due to chance. As
such, we should pay very little attention to the relative scores.
3) In my database, 3.Nd2 (Tarrash variation) in the French (1.e4 e6 2.d4
d5) scores higher than 3.Nc3 (main line) and is statistically
significant at the 5% level, but not at the 1% level. In other words, we
can be 95% sure there is a real difference in score between 3.Nf3 and
3.Nd2 in my database, but we can't be 99% sure.
In contrast, the difference in scores of 3.Nf3 (or 3.Nd2) to the
exchange (3.exd5) or advance (3.e5) variations is statistically
significant at the p=0.01 level, so there is less than a 1% chance the
observed difference in score is due to chance and can be more than 99%
sure there is an underlying reason. (The reason can't be determined in
ChessDB, but one might strongly suspect the advance or exchange are
inferior for white than the main line (3.Nc3) or Tarrasch (3.Nd2).
(I personally have a much better success rate with the Tarrasch than the
advance too. I will not contemplate the exchange as it is too boring and
while it is drawish, it scores pretty low for white.)
Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of statistics might guess I am using
a chi-squared test, which is what I am doing. Chi-squared is calculated
then the p-value determined from that, using an algorithm good to 4
decimal places. I intend changing that to a more accurate approximation
soon.
Other changes in ChessDB include
* Native support for UCI engines (using some code from P. Georges, which
I fully acknowledge, unlike him when he uses my code).
* The facility to download a database of either 100,000 or 3.5 million
games. The database is split into multiple parts for easy downloading,
then reconstructed by ChessDB and an MD5 checksum used to verify the
database has not been corrupted in transmission.
* Quickly download games from the history of anyone on ICC or FICS.
* Numerous other changes documented at:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/Scid/
I'm interested in what others think of the idea of testing the
statistical significance in the difference of two moves. To the best of
my knowledge, no other chess database does this, yet it seems to me
quite logical.
Dave
> I've made a new release of ChessDB, a chess database based on Scid from
> Shane Hudson.
I forgot to say, if you want to try ChessDB or use it to download a
large database, see:
Richard
in general, so I don't know much about existing features, but I could
see how something like that could be very useful to a master trying to
refine their opening preparation. At my patzer level (1400ish USCF),
it's something that could be cool just for the sake of curiousity.
So is this a free program? As I said, I don't know much about chess
databases (which is ironic, since I specialize in SQL databases in my
profession). I'd like to get a database program and a large database
of master and GM games eventually, so I can see how better players
than me handle certain openings and the positions that result from
them. For now, I tend to just go to chesslab.com and look at games
there in the openings I play.
--Fromper
Anonymous
Scid at http://scid.sourceforge.net or http://prolinux.free.fr/scid (the
lattest with some training features, and the ability to play against
various engines).
Richard a écrit :
Pascal
Pascal
http://prolinux.free.fr/alex_guestbook/
Dave a écrit :
M Winther
> I've made a new release of ChessDB, a chess database based on Scid from
> Shane Hudson. There is a fork too of ChessDB from the lying
> plagiarist Pascal Georges who passes of work of mine as his own, as I
> have documented at:..........
Befrore I download it I would like to know whether it handles transpositions, i.e., are
*unplayed* moves visible in the tree that lead to a played position?
Mats
Ralf Callenberg
> But I've added code that will determine
> if the difference in score between two moves is really real
> ('statistically significant') , or if it could be due to chance.
Two important factors are completely ignored in this calculation:
development over time and strength of the involved players. The first is
important because once a refuation or at least a very strong answer for
a move is found, its frequency drops. So, the old statistics of this
move stay unchanged over a long time - possibly with a favourable result
for this move, although it might be well known that this move should be
avoided.
The second factor is quite obvious: games of higher rated players tend
to be less erratic, so that those results are more expressive.
Therefore, if I look at numbers, I check the average Elo and the
performance.
Greetings,
Ralf
Dave
> Well, if you like chess databases with a lot of features you can grab
> Scid at http://scid.sourceforge.net or http://prolinux.free.fr/scid (the
> lattest with some training features, and the ability to play against
> various engines).
And the latter of which has code taken from ChessDB but not acknowledged.
Dave
> That is a very cool idea for a feature.
I'm glad you like it.
> I haven't used databases much
> in general, so I don't know much about existing features, but I could
> see how something like that could be very useful to a master trying to
> refine their opening preparation. At my patzer level (1400ish USCF),
> it's something that could be cool just for the sake of curiousity.
>
> So is this a free program?
Yes, its open source and free.
homepage
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/
tutorial
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
download page:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/downloads/
> As I said, I don't know much about chess
> databases (which is ironic, since I specialize in SQL databases in my
> profession). I'd like to get a database program and a large database
> of master and GM games eventually, so I can see how better players
> than me handle certain openings and the positions that result from
> them.
If you download it, then go to the Tools menu, Select "Download games
from" then select "3.5 million games site #1" it will download you a 3.5
million game database.
For now, I tend to just go to chesslab.com and look at games
> there in the openings I play.
Well with 3.5 million you have quite a few. ChessDB also has the
facility to download from The Week In Chess (TWIC), so you can update
the database every week (usually a Monday), when new games are added to
TWIC. See:
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/twic-retriveal.php
(The program has an http client to connect to the external sources of
data. There is also a telnet client which is used to download games from
FICS and ICC).
I do have a larger database, which I could make available, but as
databases get larger, the quality of the games goes down.
Dave
> Befrore I download it I would like to know whether it handles
> transpositions, i.e., are
> *unplayed* moves visible in the tree that lead to a played position?
>
> Mats
>
Yes. It shown positions, not moves. Hence sometimes you will find there
are no games in the database at move 5, but by move 6 there are thousands.
Pascal
Pure lies, but if you want you can put all Pocket PC code I wrote and
available on my site, change the name from PocketScid to DK_sucker, and
put your (C) on files where you did not change one byte.
You are used to it. This is what you did first with Scid, and this is
why I stayed few days tuned with you.
Richard
As I understand the original poster, I think his program looks at the
games in whatever database of games you're tell it to determine these
statistics. If you feed it a database that only has grandmaster games
from the last 5 years, then it will give you statistics based only on
those games.
Or am I misunderstanding the original post?
Personally, playing in the U1600 sections of tournaments, I'd like to
see statistics on what the most common responses by players rated
1400-1600 are to certain moves in the openings I play. That will tell
me what I really need to prepare for, regardless of how strong it is.
--Richard
Ralf Callenberg
> If you feed it a database that only has grandmaster games
> from the last 5 years, then it will give you statistics based only on
> those games.
That'd be a workaround.
>I'd like to
> see statistics on what the most common responses by players rated
> 1400-1600 are to certain moves in the openings I play. That will tell
> me what I really need to prepare for, regardless of how strong it is.
>
For this you only need the absolute number, but not some statistical
measures.
Greetings,
Ralf
Dave
> As I understand the original poster, I think his program looks at the
> games in whatever database of games you're tell it to determine these
> statistics. If you feed it a database that only has grandmaster games
> from the last 5 years, then it will give you statistics based only on
> those games.
>
Yes, that is true. However, there is a problem in this case, as the
number of games one is likely to have in a database will drop
dramatically. It may then not be possible to show statistical significance.
> Or am I misunderstanding the original post?
No, I think you understood it correctly.
> Personally, playing in the U1600 sections of tournaments, I'd like to
> see statistics on what the most common responses by players rated
> 1400-1600 are to certain moves in the openings I play. That will tell
> me what I really need to prepare for, regardless of how strong it is.
That is exactly why I added the facility in ChessDB some time back to
collect data from the ICC chess server - see screenshot at
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/icc-fics-retriveal.php
It allows you to collect data from players in your own rating range and
of specific players you might expect to meat. However, ICC have a limit
on their database so that after one has downloaded 100 games, their
database slows down and refuses to give games too quickly. I don't know
exactly what time limits they interpose, but I think one is limited to
about 1 game every 30 seconds or so, once the 100 has been reached.
Dave
Dave
>> And the latter of which has code taken from ChessDB but not acknowledged.
>
> Pure lies, but if you want you can put all Pocket PC code I wrote and
Rather than say "Pure lies" why not address the SPECIFIC I have raised
before?
I posted 9 SPECIFIC EXAMPLES before at:
But I'll ask you a few questions about the following 3 lines in your
very latest (3.6.18) plagiarised version of 'Scid' from the file
src/textbuf.h.
------------------------------------------
// void ClearTranslation (char ch) { Translation[ch] = NULL; }
// Changed ch to int, to avoid compiler warnings.
void ClearTranslation (int ch) { Translation[ch] = NULL; }
-----------------------------------------
I am being VERY SPECIFIC here - just restricting the example to 3 little
lines, with some VERY SPECIFIC questions.
1) Did you write those 3 lines Pascal?
2) If so, when?
3) If you did not write them, please indicate where they came from.
See I know those lines well. Shane wrote the first, but it was not
commented out (// is a comment in C++). The second, a comment about the
change to remove compiler warnings is what I personally wrote (yes me).
The 3rd is my changed line.
Now Sourceforge have this very nice facility on their CVS repository
that allows one to see differences between different versions of a file.
This link
http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/src/textbuf.h?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
shows in yellow the differences between version 1.1 of src/textbuf.h in
ChessDB (Tue Dec 26 19:37:44 2006 UTC) in and version 1.2 in ChessDB,
less than an hour later at Tue Dec 26 20:11:49 2006 UTC.
Funny how the lines in your code are EXACTLY the same as what I put on
Sourceforge. Your first release of scid-pg (later you renamed to Scid),
was not until AFTER that date.
So there is the challenge. Explain why the 3 lines are there? If you
find that too easy (which I doubt you will if you do it PROPERLY), then
try the others in the link on my post in Feb of this year.
SO TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE. THE SOFTWARE PASCAL CALLS SCID IS A
FORK FROM ChessDB. It does *NOT* start from tbe Scid sources, but uses
code I wrote and code others wrote.
Pascal
You took patches on internet, as I did, you applied them to Scid 3.6.1
sources as I did : hence the common stuff on very few lines : ok,
congratulations ! And so what ? Don't you think it is better to reward
original authors of patches instead of you ?
Yes I tried to collaborate a few days with you, but I understood quickly
how insane you are : do you own copyright on mispellings, C++ comments
? Can't anybody write "//" without (c) D Kirkbye alongside ? Can't I
comment one line of code in Scid without checking if you did the same ?
I continue Scid development, you first started renaming all Scid's
occurences in source files (more than 1600) without any added value, and
putting (c) D Kirkby on files you did not change at all : that's the
truth, and you even did not deny your misbehaviour ! All you can do is
take others' work and act as if you were a genius.
What's the meaning of your endless childish arguing, that interests
*nobody* ?
Dave a écrit :
Dave
> Could you please stop inventing false clues on senseless pityful stuff ?
There is no false or pitiful stuff.
> You took patches on internet,
Not the 3 lines I posted just posted (or a lot more, but I'll keep it
simple and restrict discussion it to just 3 lines).
That was *not* from the internet. I would ask you to show me *anywhere*
that patch can be found, or anyone that claims to have wrote it.
I wrote it - not you, not anyone else.
Pascal
for your contribution to Scid and for these 3 lines, and for all you did
to make Scid alive while its author's unavailability (due to long illness).
I thought you only wanted to kill Scid and bury it and take advantage of
other's work to cover your lack of skills, and I was certainly wrong.
Chess computer's world really need people like you.
Dave a écrit :
Dave
> If this was true, I would like to apologize and thank you so much Dave
> for your contribution to Scid and for these 3 lines, and for all you did
> to make Scid alive while its author's unavailability (due to long illness).
But it is not just 3 lines - and you know full well that it is not just
3 lines. I posted a longer list before:
which you never bothered responding to properly. Perhaps I will have
more luck with small pieces at a time, so here is a bit more - this time
12 lines, not 3.
http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/src/position.cpp?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
Want more?
Guy Macon
Dave wrote:
>documented at:
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/browse_frm/thread/6
> 58a58d9a17b9aaf/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a?lnk=st&q=scid+released&rnum=1&hl=en#dcb9e3c
> 5e4e7266a
You might want to consider polishing up your Google Groups citing skills:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/msg/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Pascal
Yes ! We all want more !
What you say and your consideration for the past work of others is so
interesting !
Guy Macon
I have some comments as a neutral third party who is quite
familiar with this sort of issue.
PG=Pascal Georges
DK=David Kirkby
Everything else=Guy Macon
PG: "Scid is a chess database application (original version available
PG: at http://scid.sourceforge.net). As Scid's author has been unreachable
PG: for a very long time, I decided to continue his work. So the version
PG: of Scid found here is not a fork of the original project but a
PG: continuation of it. "
It isn't a continuation unless the original author says that it is. It's
a fork. I could choose to continue the work too. By using the correct
term (fork) the issue of who is the "real" continuation doesn't come up.
DK: "I started ChessDB, http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ as a continuation
DK: /fork (you use what ever term you want)
No. You *can't* use any term you want. In particular, you can't
use the term "continuation" unless the original author says that
you are the new maintainer of his work.
DK: I'm NOT concerned about what he has taken from Scid (that is allowed
DK: under the GPL), but what he claims to have done, but has not. In
DK: particular, what code he took of mine, without acknowledgment.
Taking your code without acknowledgment is allowed under the GPL.
In particular, [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ] section 7
says that "requiring ... author attributions" and "prohibiting
misrepresentation of the origin of that material" and "requiring
that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable
ways as different from the original version" are all additional
terms, not part of the GPL.
PG: "So I will switch naming of my releases from scid-pg to scid
PG: as I have the right to."
No. You do not have the right to the name "Scid" or "scid" unless the
original author says that you are the new maintainer of his work. The
original author doesn't seem to be around to sue you, but he could.
If you think that something being Open Source under the GPL means that
the name isn't a trademark, try forking off a distribution and calling
it "Red Hat Linux" or "Slackware."
DK: which has code taken from ChessDB but not acknowledged.
See above.
PG: As chessDB is a fork of Scid
Yes. As is scid-pg.
PG: and until anybody else is better placed than me to continue Scid,
You don't get to decide that.
PG: I request things to be strictly separated : given Kirkby's
PG: attitude, I hope he'll be honest enough to continue his fork
PG: in a strict separated way than mine
Unless DK has called ChessDB "scid-pg", he has kept his fork
as separate from yours as required.
PG: I deny him the right to use my own code
You *CAN'T* deny *ANYONE* the right to use code derived from a work
licensed under the GPL. The *ONLY* way you can deny anyone the right
to use your code is to take out every bit of GPL code. Then you
can use whatever license you prefer.
PG: and put your (C) on files where you did not change one byte.
So? He changed the name and made it clear that it is a derivative
work. Look at all the forks from Red Hat, Debian, and Slackware;
they have many unchanged files but the files are part of the new,
derived work with the new name and thus are properly copyrighted
with the name of the author of the fork.
DK: SO TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE. THE SOFTWARE PASCAL CALLS
DK: SCID IS A FORK FROM ChessDB. It does *NOT* start from the Scid
DK: sources, but uses code I wrote and code others wrote.
That's not how GPL software works. You act as if PG isn't allowed to
copy all the code from ChessDB and still still call it a fork of Scid.
Assuming that scid-pg has lots of Scid code in it and lots of ChessDB
code in it, he can call it a fork of either. It works the other way,
too. You could abandon all of your work, copy all of scid-pg, rename
it ChessDB and put your name in all of the copyrights and still call
it a fork of Scid. It is very common for a fork of a fork of a fork
to call itself a fork of the original (and usually best-known) program.
To require otherwise ignores one of the main advantages of GNU FOSS;
the practice of incorporating improvements from multiple sources with
no restrictions. It goes back to Stallman's "software should be free"
argument.
PG: "you first started renaming all Scid's occurences in source
PG: files (more than 1600) without any added value
Doing that is correct behavior. Look at CentOS; they renamed all
occurrences of the phrase Red Hat, yet CentOS is as near to a perfect
clone of Red Hat as possible. It is PG who is in the wrong when he
falsely call scid-pg "scid" without permission. That's a trademark
violation. GPL doesn't shield him, either; GPL is about copyrights,
not trademarks, service-marks or patents.
For a taste of some of the issues involved, See:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/why_im_tired_of.html
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/07/30/osi_tiemann_responds/
http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/11/27/compromise-attribution-rider-on-any-osi-license/
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3694076
http://asay.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-very-last-attribution-post.html
I hope this helps.
crwydryn
> I have some comments as a neutral third party who is quite
> familiar with this sort of issue.
>
> PG=Pascal Georges
> DK=David Kirkby
>
> Everything else=Guy Macon
>
> PG: "Scid is a chess database application (original version available
> PG: for a very long time, I decided to continue his work. So the version
> PG: of Scid found here is not a fork of the original project but a
> PG: continuation of it. "
>
> It isn't a continuation unless the original author says that it is. It's
> a fork. I could choose to continue the work too. By using the correct
> term (fork) the issue of who is the "real" continuation doesn't come up.
>
It is refreshing to see someone standing up for the GPL. :)
In my case, I have tried the original scid, and both forks. I wish
that Shane had continued his work. I did not care for Pascal's fork.
The spelling correction routine in his code converted all instances of
Tigran V Petrosian to a different Tigran Petrosian, thus wiping out
the record of the former world champion, and ruining my data base.
Dave's fork seems nice so far. He seems to be innovative and
energetic.
I like to see developer's writing GPL software. It would be nice if
the antagonism between the two author's vanished. Perhaps one or both
could take the high road and answer the other by writing great
software instead of hurling insults...
Your mileage may vary...
Regards, J.D. Walker
Dave
>> which you never bothered responding to properly. Perhaps I will have
>> more luck with small pieces at a time, so here is a bit more - this
>> time 12 lines, not 3.
>>
>> http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/src/position.cpp?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
>>
>>
>> Want more?
>>
>
> Yes ! We all want more !
> What you say and your consideration for the past work of others is so
> interesting !
What do you mean by 'others'? It is not others that wrote it, but me!!
I'll make it clearer, with the following statement::
The 12 changes between the Shane's source file src/position.cpp in the
real Scid (not your plagiarised version) and what appears in 'your'
first release of scid-pg and still exist in 'your' latest release of
scid (3.6.18) were *not* written by you. They were not written by any
others. They were written by me.
THAT IS FACT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED.
Do you claim to have made those changes in the file src/position.cpp?
If you do not claim to have made the changes yourself, would you mind
saying where you got them from?
Pascal
> I like to see developer's writing GPL software. It would be nice if
> the antagonism between the two author's vanished. Perhaps one or both
> could take the high road and answer the other by writing great
> software instead of hurling insults...
I am really sorry for the wasting of your time reading those bad words
between DK and me, and thank you for your patience. But simply look at
what DK writes when announcing something new in chessDB : first, he
starts insulting me, because he can't stand someone trying to continue
Shane Hudson's work (which seems to approve my changes, even if in a non
public way : he seems to be far from internet now). That's why DK
prevented me from uploading my changes at SourceForge, with biased
arguments.
He could go his on way, but instead he tries by any manner to state that
Scid, and all derivatives (like mine) belongs in some manner to him. He
was a true beginner in Scid programming when he started chessDB and now
he wants me to prove I wrote what is available at my site, where
*nothing* is from him except a misspelling I corrected since that time :
can you imagine such behavior ? Can't he work on his own side ? No,
because he simply does not want anybody to continue Scid development. Why ?
Sorry again for the "hurling insults" but there are things that can't be
left in state, especially when you had the chance to be confronted with
DK, and to get a clue of his motivations.
More important, concerning the name "Scid" :
1. I received a *single* mail from Shane Hudson : he seemed to be
pleased by my changes (in february if I remember well, great relief for
me : I must confess I was a bit afraid), and stated he was happy I could
be "admin" of Scid at SF. But he did not know DK made "a formal
opposition" to SF staff, and it worked : then Scid has not evolved at SF
since 2004 (more than 3 years!). Nobody is now able to make simple admin
tasks at SF regarding Scid (mailing list for example). That is what DK
wanted : simply to have a vanishing Scid, so he does not like what I do.
2. I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat, or
something like that. But be sure that if Shane Hudson asks me to change
the name of Scid, I will of course do it immediately (that's why I only
use version numbers in the form 3.6.x, leaving to him 3.7+, to limit
confusion, if he continues Scid one day).
Pascal
Dave
> He
> was a true beginner in Scid programming when he started chessDB
I was new to Tcl/Tk I would admin. Not sure if I know what is mean by
'Scid programming'.
> and now
> he wants me to prove I wrote what is available at my site, where
> *nothing* is from him except a misspelling I corrected since that time :
Well that is just a pack of lies.
It was not a simple mis-spelling. I did quote as one of many examples
the mis-spelling, when I wrote:
"Shane is NOT reponsible for bugs in ChessDB"
to find the same word (responsible) mis-spelt, and the same word (NOT)
capitalised:
"Shane is NOT reponsible for bugs in Scid"
but the copied code goes well beyond a mis-spelling.
I might not be the brightest spark on the planet, but I am not thick
either. I would not accuse you of plagiarism if you just misspelt one
word. Give me some credit for intelligence!
Pascal
> > Yes ! We all want more !
> > What you say and your consideration for the past work of others is so interesting !
> What do you mean by 'others'? It is not others that wrote it, but me!!
others = Shane Hudson, people contributing to Scid, etc.
> If you do not claim to have made the changes yourself, would you mind
> saying where you got them from?
Okay, Dave you got me. I am strictly unable to prove what I wrote : so I
make public apologizes to you :
- Scid 3.6.18 was written by you (except some code by Shane Hudson). I
never took Scid 3.6.1 sources and continued its development : all or
part of 3.6.18 (choose what pleases you the most) was made by you.
Thank you very much for continuing Scid, Dave. Thank you for having
tried to continue the great work on behalf of someone who is
unfortunately unable to do so ;
- the upcoming version of Pocket Scid is currently written by you : I
wait for its release with a great impatience.
Thank you very much for that, Dave.
Please, do you allow me to continue to host your work at my site ?
Pascal
Guy Macon
----------------------------------------------------------
Pascal wrote:
>I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,
You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
Trademarks are established simply by being used.
>or something like that. But be sure that if Shane Hudson asks
>me to change the name of Scid, I will of course do it immediately
Legally, you are not allowed to use a trademark simply because the
owner never asked you not to. You need his express permission.
He could sue you if he was so inclined, and would win.
Besides, Scid stands for "Shane's Chess Information Database."
You should call yours Pcid. scid-pg is also a good name.
Also see my post under "Bill Gates vs. Richard Stallman."
Then tell me which you wish to be like.
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave wrote:
>but the copied code goes well beyond a mis-spelling.
>
>I might not be the brightest spark on the planet, but I am not thick
>either. I would not accuse you of plagiarism if you just misspelt one
>word. Give me some credit for intelligence!
Copied GPL code does not equal plagiarism. See my previous post.
Also see my post under "Bill Gates vs. Richard Stallman."
Then tell me which you wish to be like.
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave
> Dave wrote:
>
>> but the copied code goes well beyond a mis-spelling.
>>
>> I might not be the brightest spark on the planet, but I am not thick
>> either. I would not accuse you of plagiarism if you just misspelt one
>> word. Give me some credit for intelligence!
>
> Copied GPL code does not equal plagiarism. See my previous post.
>
Copying GPL'ed code is fine I've no problems with that.
It is against common decency to not acknowledge it, but I can accept
that is not a requirement of the GPL.
BUT when Pascal specifically says he wrote code, when it was written by
me, then that must come under the definition of plagiarism, which is
passing off someone elses ideas or work as your own.
Guy Macon
David Kirkby wrote:
>Copying GPL'ed code is fine I've no problems with that.
>
>It is against common decency to not acknowledge it, but I
>can accept that is not a requirement of the GPL.
In other words, you accept the fact that (direct quote from
the GPL) "requiring...author attributions" is specifically
listed as an additional optional term that not required by
the GPL. See [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ]
section 7. Good!
>BUT when Pascal specifically says he wrote code, when it
>was written by me, then that must come under the definition
>of plagiarism, which is passing off someone elses ideas or
>work as your own.
In other words, you *refuse* to accept the fact that (again
a direct quote from the GPL) "prohibiting misrepresentation
of the origin of that material" is specifically listed as
an additional optional term that not required by the GPL.
See [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ] section 7.
You aren't alone in that view. Many other software developers
don't use the GPL for that exact reason -- they don't agree
with what it says about attribution and misrepresentation of
origins. Just do a Google search on [ attribution GPL ]
[ http://www.google.com/search?q=attribution+GPL ] and see.
But that's what Stallman put into the GPL, and he did it on
purpose because he really does believe that there is no need
to prohibit misrepresentation of the origin of GPL'ed material.
Here is my problem with your position. You published ChessDB
under the GPL, and you make it clear that it is derived from
Scid, which was also published under the GPL. But you keep
trying to prohibit Pascal Georges from misrepresenting the
origin of parts of scid-pg -- which is derived from Scid and,
it appears, at least partially derived from ChessDB. So which
is it? Do you agree with the GPL on not? If you agree with
the GPL, why are you trying to impose additional restrictions
and making accusations of plagiarism when these added-on
restrictions are not followed? If you don't agree with the GPL,
why are you using GPL code from Scid in ChessDB?
Please note that I aso have major problems with Pascal Georges'
similar attempt to add additional restrictions to GPL code.
Pascal
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Pascal wrote:
>
>> I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,
>
> You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
> Trademarks are established simply by being used.
>
>> or something like that. But be sure that if Shane Hudson asks
>> me to change the name of Scid, I will of course do it immediately
>
> Legally, you are not allowed to use a trademark simply because the
> owner never asked you not to. You need his express permission.
> He could sue you if he was so inclined, and would win.
Guy, you may be right about Scid as trademark and I may be wrong. But
putting the debate on a law-ish side is a bit over exaggerated and
useless for me. I kept clear intentions on my work, in a transparent
manner, only trying to add work to Scid that can facilitate the come
back of Scid's author. If he comes back, now he can immediatly take part
of my work, and release a "genuine" Scid 3.7 in one week (that is why I
only use version numbering like 3.6.x). Nice isn't it ?
I prefer to stay on a more friendly and smooth discussion between adults
(impossible with DK), and if one day there is the risk of any conflict
with Scid's author's will, I'll do all what is necessary to avoid it.
So far the only conflict is with someone who substituted all Scid's
tokens in source code to put his own name : nothing to do with Scid's
development.
If I had wrote a great software, and was ill for years and if someone
took my work, change it in a way it is very hard for me to reintegrate
it in my original project : do you think I would be happy, even if he
had the right to do it ?
Pascal
Pascal
> It is against common decency to not acknowledge it, but I can accept
> that is not a requirement of the GPL.
>
> BUT when Pascal specifically says he wrote code, when it was written by
> me, then that must come under the definition of plagiarism, which is
> passing off someone elses ideas or work as your own.
>
Ok, I know this is false, and you know this is false. I know what I did,
I know that you can make mistakes in code and mess things and never
acknowledge it or apologize when someone proves to you that you are the
one to blame (you accused the code *I* sent to you of corrupting
databases, then you stated "I can't reproduce it" and you never
apologized because simply you did not know how to use Scid : remember ?
And I took code from *you* ??).
Then, to keep your mouth closed, I stated you are the author of Scid
3.6.18 : sorry I can't do more to please you and your ego.
When someone keeps shouting "the sky is green", you end up by saying
"yes, the sky is green". But this only means that he is daltonian, and I
really don't care he is a daltonian.
Pascal
Dave
> David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> Copying GPL'ed code is fine I've no problems with that.
>
>
>> It is against common decency to not acknowledge it, but I
>> can accept that is not a requirement of the GPL.
>
> In other words, you accept the fact that (direct quote from
> the GPL) "requiring...author attributions" is specifically
> listed as an additional optional term that not required by
> the GPL. See [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ]
> section 7. Good!
Yes, I do.
>> BUT when Pascal specifically says he wrote code, when it
>> was written by me, then that must come under the definition
>> of plagiarism, which is passing off someone elses ideas or
>> work as your own.
>
> In other words, you *refuse* to accept the fact that (again
> a direct quote from the GPL) "prohibiting misrepresentation
> of the origin of that material" is specifically listed as
> an additional optional term that not required by the GPL.
> See [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ] section 7.
>
I will accept that Pascal's refusal to acknowledge that some of 'his'
code is derived from code I wrote, does in itself not mean he is
breaching the GPL.
I still maintain that goes against what I would call 'common decency',
which I accept is not a requirement of the GPL.
> You aren't alone in that view. Many other software developers
> don't use the GPL for that exact reason -- they don't agree
> with what it says about attribution and misrepresentation of
> origins. Just do a Google search on [ attribution GPL ]
> [ http://www.google.com/search?q=attribution+GPL ] and see.
> But that's what Stallman put into the GPL, and he did it on
> purpose because he really does believe that there is no need
> to prohibit misrepresentation of the origin of GPL'ed material.
>
That I feel then means the GPL allows (perhaps even encourages)
plagiarism. I have lost some respect for the GPL there, but I accept I
licensed my code under the GPL.
> Here is my problem with your position. You published ChessDB
> under the GPL, and you make it clear that it is derived from
> Scid, which was also published under the GPL.
Yes, I am glad you say I make it clear - Pascal often accuses me of the
opposite.
> But you keep
> trying to prohibit Pascal Georges from misrepresenting the
> origin of parts of scid-pg -- which is derived from Scid and,
> it appears, at least partially derived from ChessDB. So which
> is it? Do you agree with the GPL on not?
I don't agree with this term, but I do accept it.
> If you agree with
> the GPL, why are you trying to impose additional restrictions
I'll stop trying to place any additional restriction.
> and making accusations of plagiarism
Yes, I do still accuse him of plagiarism and will continue to do so.
When someone claims code is theirs when it is not, then that is
plagiarism. It would appear that does not in itself breach the GPL, but
it is most definitely plagiarism. It is also against what I would call
'common decency'.
> when these added-on
> restrictions are not followed?
> If you don't agree with the GPL,
> why are you using GPL code from Scid in ChessDB?
I think under the circumstances I will have to say that I don't agree
100% with the GPL, but I will accept 100% of its conditions.
Perhaps a summary of my views may be:
*************************
"Pascal Georges took C++ and Tcl source code I personally wrote for
ChessDB, which is a chess database based on Scid written primarily by
Shane Hudson. Pascal originally used my code in a fork he called
scid-pg, which Pascal released on January 2007. Pascal rightfully
acknowledged his use of source code from Scid, but denies he used code I
wrote, despite *overwhelming* evidence to the contrary.
Pascal has since renamed his fork as Scid, which I believe is
inappropriate.
I am happy for Pascal to use the source code I wrote, but I would have
appreciated acknowledgement in the same way he acknowledged Shane Hudson.
I believe Pascal's failure to acknowledge me, then call me a liar when I
challenge him on this, is against 'common decency'. I believe Pascal's
actions constitute plagiarism, which is defined by the Oxford English
Dictionary as "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and
passing them off as one's own".
However, whilst I object in principle to Pascal's plagiarism, I am aware
that it is not against the conditions of the GPL under which ChessDB
is licensed."
************************
> Please note that I aso have major problems with Pascal Georges'
> similar attempt to add additional restrictions to GPL code.
I gathered that. You obviously feel we have both made some errors and so
both share some of the blame. I accept that too. I would be interested
who you believe deserves the most criticism.
Dave
> Pascal wrote:
>
>> where *nothing* is from him except a misspelling I
>> corrected since that time
>
> to use any of his code and even to claim that you wrote it,
> I am likewise free to believe or disbelieve your claims.
> It seems rather odd that you would, as you seem to claim
> above, not use any of DKs code yet for some odd reason
> copying his typos (It seems that there is more than just
> one place where his typos appear in your code) and nothing
> else. That's rather far-fetched.
>
Nicely said.
>> DK prevented me from uploading my changes at SourceForge,
>> with biased arguments.
>
>> DK made "a formal opposition" to SF staff, and it worked
>
>> 1. I received a *single* mail from Shane Hudson : he ...
>> stated he was happy I could be "admin" of Scid at SF.
>
> Would either of the two of you be so kind as to give me a
> URL where I can read all arguments submitted to sourceforge
> and the sourceforge final decision?
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1658454&group_id=1&atid=200001
Pascal
>> If he comes back, now he can immediatly take part
>> of my work, and release a "genuine" Scid 3.7 in one week (that is why I
>> only use version numbering like 3.6.x). Nice isn't it ?
>
> No. Not nice at all.
Don't you think that the only person that can judge if nice or not is
only Scid's author ? Here are some quotes from the *only* mail I got
from S. Hudson :
"[...]I am happy for others to help wherever possible.[...]"
"[...]I'm happy for you to be added as an admin at sourceforge, if that
makes it easier to get a new release sorted out.[...]"
"[...]it seems like you have added some great new features.[...]"
Yes, you are right : he does not clearly allow me to keep on with Scid,
he simply encouraged me to do so. This is what I understood. If I got
the tiniest feeling of the opposite, I would have immediately stopped.
When you state :
> Stealing is stealing. You stole the name "Scid" without permission.
> That's not only illegal, it's morally wrong. You are a thief. You
> stole a trademark. Stop it at once.
The rudeness of your words are really inappropriate here, and now this
spreads some doubt of the value of your arguments for me (my personal
feeling).
Pascal
Pascal
>> Keeping in mind that, under the GPL, you are perfectly free
>> to use any of his code and even to claim that you wrote it,
>> I am likewise free to believe or disbelieve your claims.
>> It seems rather odd that you would, as you seem to claim above, not
>> use any of DKs code yet for some odd reason
>> copying his typos (It seems that there is more than just
>> one place where his typos appear in your code) and nothing
>> else. That's rather far-fetched.
>>
>
> Nicely said.
Dave, please could you think about one thing (sorry to waste your time)
: I sent code to you several times in december, is it possible that you
took this code and forgot (unvoluntarily) that it came from me ?
Did you simply think about this obvious thing ?
It happened you got problems with Scid's code and use (this can happen
to everybody), but maybe you could have some doubt ?
But to please you (I cannot be nicer), I repeat : *all valuable code in
Scid 3.6.18 is copyrighted David Kirkby, who wrote most of valuable
enhancements since Scid 3.6.1*
Again, Dave, I would like to thank you very much for that.
Pascal
crwydryn
I think Guy has made a pretty convincing presentation of the GPL
requirements in this context. Perhaps it lacked a diplomatic
touch. :) I have one doubt about all of this. Pascal, is English a
second language for you? I ask because this whole affair might have
some roots in confusion based on language issues. Certainly
discussing the nuances of the GPL in English with someone who could
handle it much better in say French would not be optimal for
understanding. :) In any case, I thank both authors for their
efforts at writing GPL code, and hope that this conflict will fade
away soon.
J.D. Walker
Dave
> Dave a écrit :
>
>>> Keeping in mind that, under the GPL, you are perfectly free
>>> to use any of his code and even to claim that you wrote it,
>>> I am likewise free to believe or disbelieve your claims.
>>> It seems rather odd that you would, as you seem to claim above, not
>>> use any of DKs code yet for some odd reason
>>> copying his typos (It seems that there is more than just
>>> one place where his typos appear in your code) and nothing
>>> else. That's rather far-fetched.
>>>
>>
>> Nicely said.
>
> Dave, please could you think about one thing (sorry to waste your time)
> : I sent code to you several times in december, is it possible that you
> took this code and forgot (unvoluntarily) that it came from me ?
No, it is not possible. But a nice try!
You are finding it more and more difficult to justify how our codes are
so similar, others are getting as close to calling you a liar without
actually using that word, so you now suggest perhaps you sent it to me,
and so I'm the one doing the copying!!!
But I can refute that suggestion very easily, by reference to the online
tutorial, where scid-pg rather stupidly printed that the very latest
information was on a web site which had not been updated for several years.
Can I ask you if you wrote the following line of code in the file
tcl/end.tcl in scid-pg?
:::splash::add "Also look at the online tutorial
http://scid.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ will always have the very latest "
See, with no way to update the Scid web site, why would you have
possibly written that? The real Scid tutorial on which the link points
to was last updated in December 2003.
So it never had the very latest information when you released scid-pg -
it was several years out of date! There was no possible reason for you
to write that little line.
Instead, your code had inaccurate information about a link, which came
from simply substituting 'chessdb' to 'scid' in code you copied from
me!!! It was also poor grammatically, since you copied that too!
So, you see Pascal, that line of defence breaks down.
As a chess player, I quite like the French Defence 1.e4 e6 (you may see
I often use it in examples).
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/t_search_tree.php
I must say, it is far more effective than your defence of your actions!
But your actions are totally indefensible, so you should stop trying to
defend them.
Pascal
> Pascal wrote:
>> Dave a écrit :
>>
>>>> Keeping in mind that, under the GPL, you are perfectly free
>>>> to use any of his code and even to claim that you wrote it,
>>>> I am likewise free to believe or disbelieve your claims.
>>>> It seems rather odd that you would, as you seem to claim above, not
>>>> use any of DKs code yet for some odd reason
>>>> copying his typos (It seems that there is more than just
>>>> one place where his typos appear in your code) and nothing
>>>> else. That's rather far-fetched.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nicely said.
>>
>> Dave, please could you think about one thing (sorry to waste your
>> time) : I sent code to you several times in december, is it possible
>> that you took this code and forgot (unvoluntarily) that it came from me ?
>
> No, it is not possible. But a nice try!
>
> You are finding it more and more difficult to justify how our codes are
> so similar, others are getting as close to calling you a liar without
> actually using that word, so you now suggest perhaps you sent it to me,
> and so I'm the one doing the copying!!!
That is not bad to copy my code !!! There is no big offense, you can do
it, and continue to do it. When I said one day with anger "I deny you
the right to take my code", my purpose was only to get rid of you,
that's all. You were the only target of this sentence.
Why would I care to deny such tiny and picky things (copying your
misspellings, etc.) ? That is why I complied to your wills (again to get
rid of you) and said :
*all valuable code in Scid 3.6.18 is copyrighted David Kirkby, who wrote
most, if not all, valuable enhancements since Scid 3.6.1*
Cannot do more !
I even awarded you for the upcoming port of Scid to PPC : we never know
! One misspelling or
int i = 0;
would be sufficient for you to state it is your work.
So it is yours ! Just take all the code of Scid for Pocket, rename all
files, rename all occurences of Scid in it, put your (c) David Kirkby
everywhere and release it ! You are used to do such things, you have the
right to do it, so go ahaead ! (argh I misspelled ahead !! I have to put
(c) David Kirkby)
The only thing I ask, please, is to get rid of you : don't mention my
name in any file you touch. Please.
> Instead, your code had inaccurate information about a link, which came
> from simply substituting 'chessdb' to 'scid' in code you copied from
> me!!! It was also poor grammatically, since you copied that too!
english is not my mother tongue, contrary of you, so sorry for my poor
grammar and vocabulary.
If you own (C) on broken links (I am not aware of any, but who knows),
you own most of the web !
I hope I flattered you enough today ?
Pascal
Dave
> english is not my mother tongue, contrary of you, so sorry for my poor
> grammar and vocabulary.
I understand English is not your mother tongue, but it is very good. It
is certainly better than my French, which I last studied 30+ years ago.
Hence I believe you can understand when I ask if you wrote the following
line:
:::splash::add "Also look at the online tutorial
http://scid.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ will always have the very latest "
in scid-pg. If so, would you be as kind as to explain why.
Pascal
> Pascal wrote:
>
>> english is not my mother tongue, contrary of you, so sorry for my poor
>> grammar and vocabulary.
>
> I understand English is not your mother tongue, but it is very good. It
> is certainly better than my French, which I last studied 30+ years ago.
>
> Hence I believe you can understand when I ask if you wrote the following
> line:
>
> :::splash::add "Also look at the online tutorial
> http://scid.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ will always have the very latest "
No I must confess I did not wrote this stuff and any other thing (at
your will) in current Scid's code : it appears you don't understand my
poor english, so I will try to repeat in other words : you deserve *all*
fame for Scid ! You made all what has some value (and even what has
none, if you want) in current Scid's evolution, and I am not able (and
certainly no will) to prove anything, so *everything* is yours ! All
what you want !
Pascal
Kenneth Sloan
> David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> Copying GPL'ed code is fine I've no problems with that.
>>
>> It is against common decency to not acknowledge it, but I
>> can accept that is not a requirement of the GPL.
>
> In other words, you accept the fact that (direct quote from
> the GPL) "requiring...author attributions" is specifically
> listed as an additional optional term that not required by
> the GPL. See [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ]
> section 7. Good!
Note that he ALSO said that not acknowledging your sources is the sort
of thing that only angle-shooting scum will do.
Ethics is the art of knowing the difference between what you *can* do
and what you *should* do.
>
>> BUT when Pascal specifically says he wrote code, when it
>> was written by me, then that must come under the definition
>> of plagiarism, which is passing off someone elses ideas or
>> work as your own.
>
> In other words, you *refuse* to accept the fact that (again
> a direct quote from the GPL) "prohibiting misrepresentation
> of the origin of that material" is specifically listed as
> an additional optional term that not required by the GPL.
> See [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ] section 7.
Perhaps he feels that there are higher authorities than the GPL.
RMS was (and is) a clever hacker - but there are other guideposts to
civilized behavior.
--
Kenneth Sloan Kennet...@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>Perhaps he feels that there are higher authorities than the GPL.
>
>RMS was (and is) a clever hacker - but there are other guideposts to
>civilized behavior.
Point well taken. And one of the reasons why so many folks
disagree with the GPL position on attribution.
I think that part of the problem is the fact that so many people
who totally disagree with the no-owner free-software underpinnings
of the GPL release software under GPL, and then flame those who do
agree with Stallman's philosophy and behave accordingly. If you
really do believe that you own something, someone who acts as if
you don't tends to anger you, even if you did agree to a license
that says that you don't own it. Even if the work is released to
the public domain, it's still annoying seeing someone come along
and claim that they wrote it when they clearly didn't.
Which reminds me; have you read my new work _ Philosophiæ Naturalis
Principia Mathematica: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy_?
It consists of three books: _De Motu Corporum: On the motion of bodies_
Volumes I and II, and _De Mundi Systemate: On the system of the world_.
In it I explain how I invented calculus. Some little-known religious
fanatic going by the name Isaac Newton stole all of my best ideas... :)
(Note to the humor impaired: think first, flame later; not everything
posted to Usenet is serious.)
Dave
> If you
> really do believe that you own something, someone who acts as if
> you don't tends to anger you, even if you did agree to a license
> that says that you don't own it. Even if the work is released to
> the public domain, it's still annoying seeing someone come along
> and claim that they wrote it when they clearly didn't.
Which is how I feel. Couple that with a web page written about me,
calling me a liar etc:
http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/FAQ.html#fork_insane
and it does rather irritate me.
I've no idea how many people believe my version of events, and how many
believe Pascals - it would be nice to know.
BTW, it is possible under some circumstances to take over inactive
projects on Sourceforge.
http://sourceforge.net/docs/D01/en/#takeover
I don't know where that fits in with your earlier statement that it is
illegal for Pascal to use the name Scid. The problem with the term
'illegal' is that it depends on which country you are in.
David Richerby
> Personally, playing in the U1600 sections of tournaments, I'd like
> to see statistics on what the most common responses by players rated
> 1400-1600 are to certain moves in the openings I play. That will
> tell me what I really need to prepare for, regardless of how strong
> it is.
My guess is that U1600 players play much more randomly than grand-
masters. For example, you can be almost certain that a GM would play
2.d4 after 1.e4 e6. A much weaker player, on the other hand, would be
much more likely to try something like 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3 or 2.e5.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Hilarious Toy (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fun child's toy but it's a bundle
of laughs!
David Richerby
> If you think that something being Open Source under the GPL means
> that the name isn't a trademark, try forking off a distribution and
> calling it "Red Hat Linux" or "Slackware."
That's a whole different kettle of fish. You can't call your forked
distribution Red Hat Linux or Slackware precisely because those two
names *are* trademarked. But, to the best of my knowledge, the name
Scid is not a trademark.
> It is PG who is in the wrong when he falsely call scid-pg "scid"
> without permission. That's a trademark violation.
No it isn't because Scid isn't a trademark.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Hungry Cat (TM): it's like a cat but
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it'll eat you!
David Richerby
>> I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,
>
> You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
> Trademarks are established simply by being used.
No, trademarks have to be claimed.
>> or something like that. But be sure that if Shane Hudson asks
>> me to change the name of Scid, I will of course do it immediately
>
> Legally, you are not allowed to use a trademark simply because the
> owner never asked you not to. You need his express permission.
> He could sue you if he was so inclined, and would win.
On the other hand, the trademark owner has to defend his trademark
once he became aware of violations. If a trademark is not defended,
the courts will take the attitude that it is not valuable to the
trademark owner. Since the trademark is not valuable to its owner,
there can be no harm in somebody else using the name.
In particular, if I owned a trademark and you mailed me mentioning
that you were going to use my trademarked name, I would have to
respond by either allowing you to do so or forbidding you. Not
reacting to such a mail would be seen as failure to defend the
trademark if I later decided to sue you over it. So my guess is that,
in fact, Shane would lose if he tried to sue over trademark violation
here, assuming he had a trademark in the first place (which I believe
he does not.)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mentholated Newspaper (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a daily broadsheet but it's
invigorating!
james
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> Pascal wrote:
>>> I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,
>> You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
>> Trademarks are established simply by being used.
>
> No, trademarks have to be claimed.
>
I know for sure that they have to be registered in Germany, France, and
Benelux (there are very few exceptions, and only for very famous
trademark that do not need registering to be protected).
I also know for sure that in the US, they have to be used (in fact they
have to be used before registering, if you ever need a formal registration).
For international registration, the Madrid agreement states that people
can register their trademark at the WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organisation) if they have already registered in one country which has
signed the Madrid agreement. However, people have to pay for each
country they want a valid registration, turning an international
registration into a very costly process.
In many countries, trademarks are not protected any more if they haven't
been used for a "period of time" (5 years usually), and, as David wrote
in his previous message, they have to be defended, or protection of the
trademark is also lost.
David Richerby
> David Richerby a écrit :
>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>> Pascal wrote:
>>>> I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,
>>> You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
>>> Trademarks are established simply by being used.
>>
>> No, trademarks have to be claimed.
>
I didn't say `registered'; I said `claimed'. Nothing is trademarked
unless you explicitly say that it is. Registration is a further
level, offering further protection.
This is distinct from copyright which, under many countries' laws is
implicit. Under English law, I own the copyright on my words in this
post just because I created it. I don't have to stick a `Copyright
(c) David Richerby, 2007' at the bottom for this to be the case.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Homicidal Mouldy Composer (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a pupil of Beethoven but it's
starting to grow mushrooms and it
wants to kill you!
Dave
>> Which is how I feel. Couple that with a web page written about me,
>> calling me a liar etc:
>>
>> http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/FAQ.html#fork_insane
>>
>> and it does rather irritate me.
>
> That's just plain *nasty*! I think anyone reading it will see
> at once that it makes him look bad and you look good.
>
> I also noticed that he put your email address on the page in the
> clear for spambots to harvest while protecting his own by writing
> pgeorges (at) users.sourceforge.net or pascal.georges1 (at) free.fr
> instead of mailto:pgeo...@users.sourceforge.net
> or mailto:pascal....@free.fr
As you can see, Pascal Georges ( pgeo...@users.sourceforge.net or
pascal....@free.fr ) is not the nicest person to deal with and is
certainly the nastiest open-source developer I have ever come across.
I had not actually noted his trick with the email address, in leaving
mine in a form ready for spam bots, but disguising his own. But I guess
given his acts of plagiarism in claiming he wrote code for 'Scid' that
he did not write, I should not be too surprised.
I suspect he might wish he had not committed the acts of plagiarism, but
it is too late for that.
Dr. David Kirkby
David Richerby
> james <ja...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> David Richerby a écrit :
>>
>> I know for sure that they have to be registered in Germany, France,
>> and Benelux [...]
>
But, by the way, since people have complained about this in the past,
I agree with the things that you wrote that I snipped.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Chocolate Painting (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance masterpiece that's made
of chocolate!
Richard
wrote:
> Richard <blueghos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Personally, playing in the U1600 sections of tournaments, I'd like
> > to see statistics on what the most common responses by players rated
> > 1400-1600 are to certain moves in the openings I play. That will
> > tell me what I really need to prepare for, regardless of how strong
> > it is.
>
> My guess is that U1600 players play much more randomly than grand-
> masters. For example, you can be almost certain that a GM would play
> 2.d4 after 1.e4 e6. A much weaker player, on the other hand, would be
> much more likely to try something like 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3 or 2.e5.
>
> Dave.
>
do still play at least somewhat logically. Maybe not so much for
players rated under 1000, but I usually play 1200-1600 players while I
try to get my 1380 rating up to 1600 and beyond. So certain inferior
"non-book" responses are going to be much more common than others.
That's part of the reason why it's hard for intermediate players to
study openings - you memorize a book line and your opponent doesn't
play into it. But most opening books don't bother covering the common
mistakes that no master would make. There's a definite market for that
type of book if some master decided to write it. I know Dan Heisman
has written a little bit of that in his Novice Nook column at
chesscafe.com, but he only covered a few of the most common openings.
For instance, I started playing a new gambit recently, and the first
two times I tried it, both of my opponents declined the gambit with
the same "non-book" response. Luckily, these were slow games, so I had
plenty of time to work out how to get an advantage from this logical
seeming, but ultimately weak move. I ended up with a good position in
the first game that carried through all the way to a dominating middle
game and material advantage in the endgame. The second game was
tougher, because my opponent fought back well in the middle game, but
I managed to win that, too.
My point, though, is that I wasn't prepared for what's obviously a
common response to the opening that I chose, because the sources that
originally showed me the opening (in this case, a friend at a
tournament, followed by reading an article on the internet about it)
didn't think that move was worth bothering to mention.
--Fromper
Daniel C. Bastos
[...]
> Besides, Scid stands for "Shane's Chess Information Database."
> You should call yours Pcid. scid-pg is also a good name.
Donald Knuth asked that any derivative work from TeX would not carry the
TeX name. I find that this should be the norm, culturally. Keeping a
similar name on a derivative work seems to give people the feeling that
the original author still works on that software, which may now be badly
written by someone else. Though this implies cluelessness on people, it
may still give the original author a bad image which is unfair.
So I think that unless the original author has anything to do with a new
derivative work and he endorses it, the name should be very different. I
wouldn't even call it Dcid, if it were mine.
Guy Macon
David Richerby wrote:
>On the other hand, the trademark owner has to defend his trademark
>once he became aware of violations. If a trademark is not defended,
>the courts will take the attitude that it is not valuable to the
>trademark owner. Since the trademark is not valuable to its owner,
>there can be no harm in somebody else using the name.
That's true, and in this case there appears to be nobody defending
the name. Excellent point.
>Nothing is trademarked unless you explicitly say that it is.
I just looked ofer the USPTO site looking for that requirement
and could not find it. It says that you can establish rights
in a mark by using the mark or intending to use the mark in
commerce, and it says that you may (not must) use the TM or SM
designation to announce the claim. but
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/appcontent.htm#basis
does not mention anything about explicitly saying that it is a
trademark. It simply says "the mark must appear on the goods,
the container for the goods, or displays associated with the
goods, and the goods must be sold or transported in commerce."
It is my (possibly incorrect) understanding that someone can,
by usage, have a trademark by commercial use before he knows
what a trademark is.
Then again, I couldn't find anything saying they *don't* have
to be claimed, and you obviously have to claim that it is a
trademark before you can sue for infringement, but I am fairly
sure that the lawsuit will be decided on who used the mark in
commerce first, not who explicitly claimed that it is a trademark
first. I could be wrong, of course. If you have any wording
from the USPTO or from an applical law, I would be most interested
in reading it.
The question of who owns the Trademark "Linux" is instructive.
Linus Torvalds created Linux in 1991. At that time and for
years afterward he made no trademark claims.
In 1994 one William R. Della Croce Jr. of Boston made what appears
to be the first claim that "Linux" is a trademark, and in 1996
started demanding 10 percent royalties on sales from Linux vendors.
In the resulting lawsuit, R. Della Croce's claim was nullified
and the Linux trademark was legally assigned to Linus Torvalds.
See [ http://www.linuxmark.org/ ].
Especially instructive is the Petition to Cancel filed by
Linus Torvalds and others: [ http://lwn.net/Articles/148228/ ].
Nowhere in that document is there any claim that anyone other
than Croce was the first to claim the trademark, only that it
was in use in commerce long before he did so.
It is my belief that "Linux" became a trademark when the first
dollar changed hands while buying a copy -- even though nobody
at the time explicitly said that it was a trademark.
Kenneth Sloan
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> Pascal wrote:
>>> I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,
>> You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
>> Trademarks are established simply by being used.
>
> No, trademarks have to be claimed.
That must be one of the myriad facts about trademark that he's forgotten.
Kenneth Sloan
>
> For international registration, the Madrid agreement states that people
> can register their trademark at the WIPO (World Intellectual Property
> Organisation) if they have already registered in one country which has
> signed the Madrid agreement. However, people have to pay for each
> country they want a valid registration, turning an international
> registration into a very costly process.
>
> In many countries, trademarks are not protected any more if they haven't
> been used for a "period of time" (5 years usually), and, as David wrote
> in his previous message, they have to be defended, or protection of the
> trademark is also lost.
>
As well it should. Trademarks are usually restricted to a particular
market segment AND a geographic region. If your use is in another
country, or for a product/service that cannot reasonably be confused
with the original, then there is no trademark infringement.
The acid test for trademark is: will the consumer be confused?
There is an interesting example in my area - a local theater company was
using a name that was already in use by a theater in another state. As
long as the theater company remained small and local, there was no
problem - but as soon as the theater company "went regional" and started
advertising in the other company's area, there WAS a conflict, and our
local company had to change names (or...remain forever small and local).
It makes little sense to try to register a trademark in a region in
which you don't do business - and if you DO do business in every
country, the cost of registration in each country is trivial. Paying to
register, and then NOT USING the trademark in a particular country, is
likely to lead to your LOSING the court battle when a conflict arises.
Use it, or lose it.
Note that this is very different from copyright, or patent.
Guy Macon
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>That must be one of the myriad facts about trademark that he's forgotten.
Is there a special on ad hominems this week, Kenneth?
Dave (from the UK)
> David Richerby wrote:
>
>
>>On the other hand, the trademark owner has to defend his trademark
>>once he became aware of violations. If a trademark is not defended,
>>the courts will take the attitude that it is not valuable to the
>>trademark owner. Since the trademark is not valuable to its owner,
>>there can be no harm in somebody else using the name.
>
>
> That's true, and in this case there appears to be nobody defending
> the name. Excellent point.
It is reasonably well known Shane Hudson (original author of Scid) has
been (still is?) seriously ill. Hence Shane has probably not been in a
position to defend the name Scid even if he wanted.
Anyway, I am pleased to see others feel the same way as me. There has
not been a single person here (apart from Pascal Georges ) say they
believe he is right to use the name Scid. There have been numerous
people (I have lost count) who feel he should not be using the name.
To be fair to Pascal, there was one person on the Scid mailing list some
time back who said they felt he should have access to the Scid web site
to use the name Scid. Everyone else who expressed an opinion, felt it
was inappropriate.
I am not aware of anyone ever (apart from Pascal), who has read
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/msg/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a
express any doubts my claims of plagiarism are true. A few have hinted
they believe they are well founded, but to be fair, nobody has actually
said so.
If anyone (apart from Pascal of course), has read
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/msg/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a
and believe my claims of plagiarism by Pascal Georges are not
convincing, then please say so and give a brief reason why.
If you have read it and do believe my claims of plagiarism are well
founded, you please say so. It would be appreciated!!!
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month...@althorne.org
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
Guy Macon
Dave from the UK wrote:
>I am not aware of anyone ever (apart from Pascal), who has read
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.chess.computer/msg/dcb9e3c5e4e7266a
>
>express any doubts my claims of plagiarism are true. A few have hinted
>they believe they are well founded, but to be fair, nobody has actually
>said so.
For the record, I firmly believe that Pascal copied that which was
written by you and claimed that it was his work. My doubts about
plagiarism revolve around whether doing that in the context of the
GPL is actually plagiarism or something that is annoying and
distasteful but allowed.
BTW. I also beleive that Pascal is correct when he says that you
took Scid code, changed the copyright notices, and changed Scid
to ChessDB in various places. In your case I *know* that doing
that is allowed and is even encouraged as being a great way to
make sure that nobody confuses the fork with the original as
they diverge.
Ralf Callenberg
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
>> That must be one of the myriad facts about trademark that he's forgotten.
>
> Is there a special on ad hominems this week, Kenneth?
>
The point is, you called yourself as a first class expert in trademark
issues. Telling Pascal you had forgotten more about this topic, than he
ever would learn about it. A quite bold statement. Well, and than you
missed such a basic fact about trademarks. That somebody because of that
comes up with a joke on your cost, was quite inevitable. I didn't write
what Kenneth has written - but I had spontaenously more or less the same
idea, when I read the dialogue between you and David Richerby.
Greetings,
Ralf
David Richerby
> David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> My guess is that U1600 players play much more randomly than grand-
>> masters. For example, you can be almost certain that a GM would
>> play 2.d4 after 1.e4 e6. A much weaker player, on the other hand,
>> would be much more likely to try something like 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3 or
>> 2.e5.
>
> we do still play at least somewhat logically.
Yes, though the logic is often somewhat flawed. ;-) (Speaking as a
lower-rated player myself.)
> That's part of the reason why it's hard for intermediate players to
> study openings - you memorize a book line and your opponent doesn't
> play into it. But most opening books don't bother covering the
> common mistakes that no master would make. There's a definite market
> for that type of book if some master decided to write it. I know Dan
> Heisman has written a little bit of that in his Novice Nook column
> at chesscafe.com, but he only covered a few of the most common
> openings.
The masters have already answered this question time and time again.
Yes, Heisman has gone through some common opening mistakes but the
point wasn't to teach you what to do in those specific circumstances
but to serve as examples to a general argument.
The answer is not memorizing responses to bad moves that your opponent
might play but understanding opening principles. If you understand
why the book move is good, you're well on the way to understanding why
the other moves are not so good and what to do about them. If, for
example, the purpose of the book move is to hinder the development of
some piece or to take control of some square, your response to an
alternative move is almost certainly going to be to develop the piece
that your opponent neglected to hinder or to occupy or take control of
the square that your opponent neglected. (So, for example, after
1.d4, the purpose of the usual moves 1... d5 and 1... Nf6 is to take
control of e4 and stop you putting a pawn there. So, if Black plays
something other than those two moves, you should seriously consider
2.e4.)
Trying to deal with your opponent's low opening knowledge by
memorizing responses to sub-optimal moves is just an even worse
version of the opening-memorization game. Because now, you have to
memorize three or four times as many branches, everywhere in the
tree. It's just not possible.
> For instance, I started playing a new gambit recently, and the first
> two times I tried it, both of my opponents declined the gambit with
> the same "non-book" response. [...] My point, though, is that I
> wasn't prepared for what's obviously a common response to the
> opening that I chose, because the sources that originally showed me
> the opening (in this case, a friend at a tournament, followed by
> reading an article on the internet about it) didn't think that move
> was worth bothering to mention.
My point is that you brought this trouble on yourself by playing moves
that you'd memorized without understanding. People often decline
gambits (especially unfamiliar ones) because they think, ``Wow! He's
prepared to give me a whole pawn for something I can't see. It must
be a really powerful attack so I don't want to go there.'' Going into
a serious game with a new gambit and no idea what you'll do if it's
declined sounds a bit foolish to me (or, at least, prejudicial to your
chances of winning). But you worked it through and won both games --
now you have a better understanding of your opening and you're a
better player for it. At least, I hope you have a better
understanding, rather than just a memory of the moves that won last
time, which will be scuppered if your next opponent declines the
gambit but then plays something different.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Perforated Radioactive Pants (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a well-tailored pair of
trousers but it'll make you glow in
the dark and it's full of holes!
David Richerby
> It is reasonably well known Shane Hudson (original author of Scid)
> has been (still is?) seriously ill. Hence Shane has probably not
> been in a position to defend the name Scid even if he wanted.
Indeed. And my sympathies and best wishes to him.
I've no idea how the law would treat the (hypothetical) case of a
private individual who held a trademark but was unable to defend it
for such reasons.
And I'm staying well clear of the arguments of who may or may not be
right about the specific case under discussion. I have no opinion on
the matter and do not wish to become familiar enough with the rancour
to acquire one.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poisonous Dangerous Hat (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a hat but it could explode at any
minute and it'll kill you in seconds!
David Richerby
>> Nothing is trademarked unless you explicitly say that it is.
>
> I just looked ofer the USPTO site looking for that requirement
> and could not find it. It says that you can establish rights
> in a mark by using the mark or intending to use the mark in
> commerce, and it says that you may (not must) use the TM or SM
> designation to announce the claim. but
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/appcontent.htm#basis
> does not mention anything about explicitly saying that it is a
> someone can, by usage, have a trademark by commercial use before he
> knows what a trademark is.
That document defines the steps one must take in order to register a
trademark -- i.e., to be able to put (R) after the mark.
> Then again, I couldn't find anything saying they *don't* have
> to be claimed, and you obviously have to claim that it is a
> trademark before you can sue for infringement
Tada.
> If you have any wording from the USPTO or from an applical law, I
> would be most interested in reading it.
I'm not going to spend a long time hunting for things but it's
implicit in
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm
``You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use of the
mark.'' I.e., your use of a mark (i.e., a name, logo, etc.) gives you
the possibility of establishing rights with respect to that mark. In
contrast, with copyright, the rights exist already, as soon as you
create the work.
``Any time you claim rights in a mark...'' implies that the rights do
not exist until you claim them.
> It is my belief that "Linux" became a trademark when the first
> dollar changed hands while buying a copy -- even though nobody
> at the time explicitly said that it was a trademark.
No. The right to claim a trademark on the term came into existence at
that point (or possibly earlier). The trademark itself came into
existence later.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Laptop Robot (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-tech robot that you can put on
your lap!
Dave
> Dave (from the UK) <aug-...@althorne.org> wrote:
>> It is reasonably well known Shane Hudson (original author of Scid)
>> has been (still is?) seriously ill. Hence Shane has probably not
>> been in a position to defend the name Scid even if he wanted.
>
> Indeed. And my sympathies and best wishes to him.
Yes, me too.
> I've no idea how the law would treat the (hypothetical) case of a
> private individual who held a trademark but was unable to defend it
> for such reasons.
Me neither and I strongly suspect it would depend on which country you
are in and what way the wind is blowing the day it goes to court.
> And I'm staying well clear of the arguments of who may or may not be
> right about the specific case under discussion. I have no opinion on
> the matter and do not wish to become familiar enough with the rancour
> to acquire one.
I just feel it was inappropriate myself, but that is not based on any
trademarks, as I know nothing about them.
There have been now at least 3 forks of Scid, with Pascal the only one
to feel he has the right to use the original name Scid.
Pascal
> not been a single person here (apart from Pascal Georges ) say they
> believe he is right to use the name Scid.
If you mind waste your time and browse my guest book, you may find the
opposite idea.
Pascal
With a link it is better :
http://prolinux.free.fr/alex_guestbook/
And yes, Dave, this guestbook is automatically filtered :
- No viagra spam
- No fake Rolex spam
- No junk post from you
James
> Dave (from the UK) <aug-...@althorne.org> wrote:
>> It is reasonably well known Shane Hudson (original author of Scid)
>> has been (still is?) seriously ill. Hence Shane has probably not
>> been in a position to defend the name Scid even if he wanted.
>
> Indeed. And my sympathies and best wishes to him.
>
> I've no idea how the law would treat the (hypothetical) case of a
> private individual who held a trademark but was unable to defend it
> for such reasons.
>
> And I'm staying well clear of the arguments of who may or may not be
> right about the specific case under discussion. I have no opinion on
> the matter and do not wish to become familiar enough with the rancour
> to acquire one.
>
>
:-)
Daniel C. Bastos
I agree. For example: while a bad move would let a strong player go for
a checkmate, a weak player would not be able to carry the mate on, so it
might not be a wise decision for the weak player --- assume he cares to
win that one no matter what.
Weak players need to see how a bad move can be exploited; and they need
to see it in multiple ways, so that they train their brains to see the
patterns. It'd be nice to see books on this.
Dave
Pascal,
Given your ability to lie the way you do, I would not trust anything on
your guest book. You *could* filter out any negative comments you did
not like and you *could* add in any positive ones you wanted. I don't
know that you do this of course, and I'm *not* accusing you of doing so,
but it is quite possible. Given your track record, I will not waste my
time looking, since I will not know whether the posts were genuine or not.
There is also the fact those posting might not be aware of both side of
this argument.
I think you would have to accept when the issue of the takeover of the
Scid web site came up, there was only one person who felt you should
have had the right to do so.
Likewise, I don't know if I trust you received the email from Shane you
claim to have done. I hope you did, as I would love to know Shane is
alive, but you have claimed many things I know are not true.
Oh and by the way, whilst I know you have a manual on your prolinux.fr
web site, I don't see any tutorial at all, which is yet one reason your
early releases should not have had the line:
"Also look at the online tutorial http://scid.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
will always have the very latest "
Looking at the evidence, we see:
1) You have never written a tutorial.
2) scid-pg was hosted at prolinux.fr, not as Sourceforge.
3) The tutorial it does point to is 3 years out of date - hardly
containing the very latest information.
4) It is an exact copy, complete with my rather poor grammar of
something I added to the CVS source tree on Sourceforge before you put
out your first release of scid-pg.
5) If we substitute chessdb with scid, we see it is exactly the same as
the wording in ChessDB, which was:
"Also look at the online tutorial
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ will always have the very latest "
So under the circumstances, perhaps you can understand my reluctance to
rely on anything on your guest book.
Guy Macon
David Richerby wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> If you have any wording from the USPTO or from an applicable law, I
>> would be most interested in reading it.
>
>I'm not going to spend a long time hunting for things but it's
>implicit in
>
>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm
Hey, I am just happy that someone here is presenting logical
arguments instead of resorting to personal abuse!
>``You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use of the
>mark.'' I.e., your use of a mark (i.e., a name, logo, etc.) gives you
>the possibility of establishing rights with respect to that mark. In
>contrast, with copyright, the rights exist already, as soon as you
>create the work.
>
>``Any time you claim rights in a mark...'' implies that the rights do
>not exist until you claim them.
I just read the URL above very carefully. It appears to cover
several related things:
[1] Whether registration of a mark is required (no)
[2] How to establish rights in a mark (legitimate use)
[3] Advantages of federal trademark registration (long list)
[4] When it is allowable to use the trademark symbols TM, SM and (C)
(TM/SM any time, (R) only after the mark is registered)
The phrase "You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate
use of the mark." is in section [1].
The phrase "Any time you claim rights in a mark" is in section [4].
I am having trouble interpreting "you can establish rights in a
mark" as actually meaning "[you can create] the possibility of
establishing rights [in a mark]." "establish" and "[gain] the
the possibility of establishing" seem to have different meanings.
I am also having trouble seeing how "Any time you claim rights in
a mark" in the context of defining when it is allowable to use the
trademark symbols TM, SM and (R) -- use of which is explicitly a
claim of rights to a mark -- implies that "the rights do not exist
until you claim them." It seems to me to be a simple description
of what you are doing when you use TM, SM or (R) -- claiming rights
in a mark.
Just to make myself clear, I am not saying that your interpretation
is unreasonable, obviously wrong, stupid, etc. I am just not convinced
that it is correct.
Pascal
> Pascal wrote:
>> > Anyway, I am pleased to see others feel the same way as me. There has
>>> not been a single person here (apart from Pascal Georges ) say they
>>> believe he is right to use the name Scid.
>>
>> If you mind waste your time and browse my guest book, you may find the
>> opposite idea.
>
> Pascal,
>
> Given your ability to lie the way you do, I would not trust anything on
> your guest book. You *could* filter out any negative comments you did
> not like and you *could* add in any positive ones you wanted. I don't
> know that you do this of course, and I'm *not* accusing you of doing so,
> but it is quite possible. Given your track record, I will not waste my
> time looking, since I will not know whether the posts were genuine or not.
This is typical of your behavior, you claim things, I kindly give a
pointer that may make you think that maybe you are wrong, and you simply
state that all people writing things that are opposite to your wills
simply don't exist.
Could you please be more objective ?
But all this is so sterile .... Only remmbering me how I was right not
to continue to work with you on chessDB after just few days. I had great
flair at Christmas 2006.
Pascal
Dave
>> Given your ability to lie the way you do, I would not trust anything
>> on your guest book. You *could* filter out any negative comments you
>> did not like and you *could* add in any positive ones you wanted. I
>> don't know that you do this of course, and I'm *not* accusing you of
>> doing so, but it is quite possible. Given your track record, I will
>> not waste my time looking, since I will not know whether the posts
>> were genuine or not.
>
> This is typical of your behavior, you claim things, I kindly give a
> pointer that may make you think that maybe you are wrong, and you simply
> state that all people writing things that are opposite to your wills
> simply don't exist.
>
Pascal,
I claim you are a liar and stand by that. I have not claimed you alter
the contents of your guest book.
> Could you please be more objective ?
I believe I am being very objective.
You have altered the contents of both C++ and Tcl files to suite you,
then denied it. Give me one good reason to believe you would not do the
same with HTML (as a guest book would use) if it suited you.
You have at least one web page with false information on it:
http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/FAQ.html#fork_insane
Give me one good reason another page (i.e. your guest book) would not
have false information too.
Given these facts, I believe I am being objective when I decide the
information on your web site can not be trusted. If I do not trust the
information on the site, there is little point me going there to seek
information.
Pascal
> I believe I am being very objective.
Please look at what can be found at
http://prolinux.free.fr/alex_guestbook/
(and I only take *some* of the quotations where the sender *can* be
identified and proved by *anybody* through email tracing) :
"Thanks for having kept scid alive"
"I like your work on Scid. keep it up!!!"
"I have been using SCID for over four years, but gave up tracking new
releases. On a whim, I hunted a bit and found this site. I can't wait to
d'load and try the new version features. Thanks! "
"Keep up the good work. Shane, come back someday, your work is alive and
well. "
"Warm Regards and Greetings to you. I took some time every now and then
to see if SCID was somehow getting developed but ..... Then I came
across the WBEC Link which announced the new version of SCID. My joy
knew no bounds and i am taking this chance to congratulate and thank you
and Shane for this lovely program.
I speak for all like-minded ppl some of whom may not have time to write
and convey their gratitude.
For them I 'd like to say one thing .... Pl write a word of thanks to
ppl like Pascal or Shane ....Its the least we could do to these generous
ppl.
Pascal and Shane ... may your tribe increase.!! "
"Great program! Thanks for keeping it alive!"
"it is great to see this program becoming better and better.
I also like it that its name still is 'scid' and not something else. "
"thanks for giving your time for this useful chess program. "
"Keep this amazing tool rolling! Thank you!! "
"Great work!!! It would have been shame if SCID died... "
"Thank you for continuing this much-needed project! I am specially fond
of your implementation of [...stripped...]"
"Thanks for picking up on this. I've used scid for several years in
linux and on windows If the original author is out there anywhere I
think scid is currently in good hands. "
"I had thought SCID was just another SourceForge ghost! I used it a few
years ago and thought it quite promising. VERY glad to see that it is
alive and well and continuing to improve! "
"Incredible work! I thought that the SCIDs efforts were stopped. "
"Thanks once again for all your hard work.
Forget the crap with other people. You have improved Scid while others
have so far mainly just done a lot of talking.
Your efforts are greatly appreciated."
I will stop here because I am fed up with copy/paste and this latest is
one of my favorites.
So Dave, I know how unbelievable it can appear, but there *exists*
people that demonstrates to you that your statements are simply wrong.
You see some people, like me, attached to Scid, like we can be for a
pet. I even wrote publicaly at SourceForge, to let *you* update Scid at
SF, just to avoid it to be flagged as "abandonned project".
But I will not state :
David Kirkby is a liar, a B&S spreader
because I have too much consideration for you, for your open mind, the
high value of your arguing, your technical skills and your will to have
things moving forward.
Pascal
David Richerby
> I agree. For example: while a bad move would let a strong player go
> for a checkmate, a weak player would not be able to carry the mate
> on, so it might not be a wise decision for the weak player ---
> assume he cares to win that one no matter what.
Unless you make a really shockingly bad move in the opening, you're
not going to get checkmated by force, even if you're playing a
consultation team of Anad, Topalov and Hydra.
Strong players get a good position out of the opening against weak
players because they understand the principles of the opening --
mainly, the centre and development. It's not usually because of one
crushingly bad move but because of a series of poor moves. After a
few poor moves, your stronger opponent has a development advantage and
the initiative and then you run out of good moves.
> Weak players need to see how a bad move can be exploited; and they
> need to see it in multiple ways, so that they train their brains to
> see the patterns. It'd be nice to see books on this.
You're trying to treat the symptoms, rather than the illness, I think.
Try going through some of Morphy's games against weak opposition and
work out what he did well in the opening and what his opponents did
badly. Try not to be distracted by the flashy checkmates. ;-)
Have a look at Chernev's _Logical Chess Move by Move_. Nimzowitsch's
_My System_ has a good chapter on the importance of the centre, though
the rest is probably a little heavy for now -- perhaps borrow it from
a library.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poisonous Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage but it'll
kill you in seconds!
Dave (from the UK)
> Please look at what can be found at
> http://prolinux.free.fr/alex_guestbook/
> (and I only take *some* of the quotations where the sender *can* be
> identified and proved by *anybody* through email tracing) :
>
> "Thanks for having kept scid alive"
I think it is fair to say I started to keep Scid alive before you. How
many bytes had you released before I made the first release of ChessDB?
> "I like your work on Scid. keep it up!!!"
But it is not all your work is it! You take credit for the work of me!
> "I have been using SCID for over four years, but gave up tracking new
> releases. On a whim, I hunted a bit and found this site. I can't wait to
> d'load and try the new version features. Thanks! "
> "Keep up the good work. Shane, come back someday, your work is alive and
> well. "
But it it not your work.
> But I will not state :
> David Kirkby is a liar, a B&S spreader
Good idea really not to really.
> because I have too much consideration for you, for your open mind, the
> high value of your arguing, your technical skills and your will to have
> things moving forward.
>
Could it be that I am not lying? Someone posted on the other thread,
whilst replying to me, and talking about you:
**********************
"I also have not seen you tell a lie. I have seen him tell what appear
to be lies, he is stealing the name of another program, and
he is nonresponsive to my attempts to explain what the GPL
does and does not require, simply repeating his assertions
rather than dealing with objections to them."
***********************
BTW Pascal, if I wrote a guest book entry, explaining why I believe what
you are doing is wrong, make the accusations of plagiarism I do, provide
links to evidence etc, would that entry appear in your guest book? Or
would you censor it?
If you will be so kind as to post it in full, I will do so.
Nobody would expect you to put every bit of spam you get sent, but you
would have a reasoned argument from someone with an interest in Chess,
an interest in your code. I'll even try to get the grammar and spelling
right, although I am the first to admit English is not my strongest
subject, despite it being my first language.
If you would censor such a post, then it proves my point that the guest
book can't be seen to reflect public opinion.
Let me know your decision on that one.
Dave (from the UK)
> Weak players need to see how a bad move can be exploited; and they need
> to see it in multiple ways, so that they train their brains to see the
> patterns. It'd be nice to see books on this.
There are books on it - see for example:
http://www.chesshouse.com/Chess_Opening_Traps_p/2142.htm
There are a few examples at this site:
http://www.chesstutor.net/openings/
of this sort of thing. I've seen the odd 1500 player make one of those
bluders, which leads to the lost of a pawn.
There are a few more examples of the Smith-Morra gambit on ICC's
'trainingbot'. The thing about them in the SM gambit is that they can
lead to a quick defeat by the loss of a queen, or minor piece. There are
lots of them too.
You can probably find these by going over your games with a chess
engine. They should find any blunders quite easily.
The problem I have seen with many of these bad moves is that one side
sets a trap for their opponent to play a bad move. This usually (but not
always) means playing a slightty sub-optimal move. If your opponent
falls for the traps, you have a good chance of winnning the game
quickly. If they don't you will have an inferior position.
David Richerby
> The problem I have seen with many of these bad moves is that one
> side sets a trap for their opponent to play a bad move. This usually
> (but not always) means playing a slightty sub-optimal move. If your
> opponent falls for the traps, you have a good chance of winnning the
> game quickly. If they don't you will have an inferior position.
Quite. Heisman calls this `hope chess' and repeatedly advises against
it. Really, this whole approach is just a slightly more grown-up
version of 1.e4 2.Bc4 3.Qf3/h5.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Natural Pickled Drink (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a refreshing juice beverage but it's
preserved in vinegar and completely
natural!
Pascal
> If you would censor such a post, then it proves my point that the guest
> book can't be seen to reflect public opinion.
You can't stop that, can you ? When ONE person agrees with you, you will
take this as example that you are right. When you read a bunch of people
stating you are wrong then they don't reflect "public opinion". Could
you be honest ?
> Let me know your decision on that one.
If you prove not agressive, you can post kindly (if you can) something
like :
"Current Scid 3.6.18 contains X (put *any* number between 1 to 100.000)
lines of code written by David Kirkby"
Or
"Scid 3.6.18 could not exist without the great work of David Kirkby"
Why would I censor it ?
For my information (sorry if I did not read carefully your previous
posts and if they contain this informations), how many lines of *code*
(just the sum) you think is present in Scid (by code I mean no comments,
misspellings, broken links, etc.) that was written by you (that is not
coming from patches or modifs proposals found on Internet, not coming
from mails others sent to both of us).
I already plublicly acknowledged that Scid 3.6.18 and even Pocket Scid
could not exist without you : you can even claim that *all* changes in
Scid are directly or indirectly from you.
Seriously, who cares ? Certainly not me. The way you *need* to state
*You* wrote this misspelling or those 3 lines of code make me think
about your deep motivations. Lack of recognition maybe ?
But if you start as usually your picky, arrogant and sterile arguing of
30+ lines, be sure I will censor it.
Pascal
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> Seriously, who cares ? Certainly not me. The way you *need* to state
> *You* wrote this misspelling or those 3 lines of code make me think
> about your deep motivations. Lack of recognition maybe ?
>
> But if you start as usually your picky, arrogant and sterile arguing of
> 30+ lines, be sure I will censor it.
>
I don't care per say, as I just like using a good product and have not
attempted to modify it [should I?]. I am a full-time software developer. I
can tell you for a fact, that if I contribute code to an open source product
that I expect to be properly attributed [as everybody should]. If you are
applying patches from the Internet that were created by another author, then
you should be attributing that to that author somewhere. At the very least,
in the ChangeLog.
In fact, that is exactly where I would expect to find it, in the change log.
Further, if there is any sort of credits file [I didn't look], I would expect
to find it there as well. Branch source code and then adding others changes
without attributions is basically plaguerism.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.
Richard
wrote:
> Dave (from the UK) <feb-2...@althorne.org> wrote:
>
> > The problem I have seen with many of these bad moves is that one
> > side sets a trap for their opponent to play a bad move. This usually
> > (but not always) means playing a slightty sub-optimal move. If your
> > opponent falls for the traps, you have a good chance of winnning the
> > game quickly. If they don't you will have an inferior position.
>
> Quite. Heisman calls this `hope chess' and repeatedly advises against
> it. Really, this whole approach is just a slightly more grown-up
> version of 1.e4 2.Bc4 3.Qf3/h5.
>
> Dave.
>
Those aren't the type of bad moves I was talking about in my earlier
posts. While there are traps that give you an inferior position if
your opponent notices the trap and doesn't fall for it, there are
plenty of solid moves that happen to have a trap to them if one side
doesn't realize it. While I've seen books on cheap traps and really
lousy opening moves (Pandolfini's Traps and Zaps, etc), I haven't seen
any books that warn against the reasonable seeming opening moves that
just don't work.
For instance, the Vienna Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4. Many
players who don't know this position think they can treat it like a
King's Gambit with knights developed earlier, and they accept the
gambit pawn with 3. ... exf4. In this position, though, that's a
blunder due to 4. e5, forcing the f6 knight to retreat to its starting
square (4. ... Qe7 5. Qe2 doesn't help). But that's not what white's
hoping for when he plays 3. f4. He just wants more control over the
center and a chance to open the f file so his castled rook will attack
f7. That's not a cheap trap, just a reasonable opening move.
And 3. ... fxe4 seems like a reasonable move at first glance, to
someone who hasn't seen this position before. While this may be
discussed in a book on the Vienna, how many players who respond to 1.
e4 with e5 and don't play the Vienna as white are going to read a book
on the Vienna? This type of thing isn't covered in MCO or NCO or any
similar reference that someone might use just to get a basic feel for
openings they might run into but don't routinely play.
So that's the type of book I'd like to see - something that covers
these types of reasonable looking moves that don't work for a wide
variety of openings.
And you've got Heisman's definition of "hope chess" wrong. He uses
that term to describe playing a move without looking at your
opponent's possible responses, just hoping that they don't have a good
response. It's not about hoping your opponent doesn't see something.
--Fromper
Pascal
> I don't care per say, as I just like using a good product and have not
> attempted to modify it [should I?]. I am a full-time software developer. I
> can tell you for a fact, that if I contribute code to an open source product
> that I expect to be properly attributed [as everybody should]. If you are
> applying patches from the Internet that were created by another author, then
> you should be attributing that to that author somewhere. At the very least,
> in the ChangeLog.
You are right, and you will notice that in my Changelog file, it is the
case (I counted 15 times "thanks to ..."), even if it may happen that I
could make omissions if I am not careful enough.
What have I done :
- I received an email from David Kirkby after a few days of
collaboration on chessdb in late 2006 : with some anger, I made "rm -rf
./chessdb", because I was already fed up with him and his superiority
complex. I am sure of that. Then I had 3 folders remaining on my PC
(Scid-3.6.1, Scid-3.6.1b1, Scid-3.6.1-mod). I've been working on the
latest for *years*, long before the birth of chessdb. Hence the feeling
I still have that nothing (I mean *code*) from chessdb was present in
the other folders.
- Then David Kirkby could not stop claiming that Scid-3.6.1+ contained
code from him, and I simply disagreed, not giving much attention to him
because his claims were about misspellings, broken links (I found this
so childish, that I stopped reading with attention his posts).
- Given its insistance, I made strictly the opposite (clearly laughing
at him), stating publicly many times now, that all Scid 3.6.18 code was
coming from him, or at least huge parts of Scid, as he wants. What more
could I do about such a puerile and sterile mess ? Just consider what DK
claims : I am sure he wrote more lines in his posts here than code !
If only someone could continue Scid's development ! I would give to him
all what I did, anonymously, never asking a sugar like a dog would (this
is also why I asked DK to remove any occurence of my name present in
chessdb).
It appears that people's motivations are different here.
Pascal
Dave (from the UK)
>
>> If you would censor such a post, then it proves my point that the
>> guest book can't be seen to reflect public opinion.
>
>
> You can't stop that, can you ? When ONE person agrees with you, you will
> take this as example that you are right. When you read a bunch of people
> stating you are wrong then they don't reflect "public opinion". Could
> you be honest ?
>
I don't actually recall anyone agreeing with you on the original thread.
> If you prove not agressive, you can post kindly (if you can) something
> like :
>
> "Current Scid 3.6.18 contains X (put *any* number between 1 to 100.000)
> lines of code written by David Kirkby"
>
> Or
>
> "Scid 3.6.18 could not exist without the great work of David Kirkby"
>
> Why would I censor it ?
And why would I bother writing that - it hardly does justice to the
situation.
> For my information (sorry if I did not read carefully your previous
> posts and if they contain this informations), how many lines of *code*
> (just the sum) you think is present in Scid (by code I mean no comments,
> misspellings, broken links, etc.) that was written by you (that is not
> coming from patches or modifs proposals found on Internet, not coming
> from mails others sent to both of us).
I do not actually believe you applied *any* patches from the internet
yourself - I believe you copied them *all* from me. The first few
versions of your code made no mention of any patches found on the
internet - that little snippit of information was only added to your
ChangeLog and your web pages after I bought it to your attention.
Here is your ChangeLog
-----------------------------
The base of these changes is the latest Scid-3.6.1 available at
http://scid.sourceforge.net
As Shane Hudson vanished some time ago, I added my own modifications
using this naming convention
scid-3.6.1-pg.x where x is 1..
------------------------------
No mention of patches from the internet is there? Your *own*
modifications. I guess you must have forgotten you applied some patches.
Here is your ChangeLog.old
-----------------------
cat ChangeLog.old
# Scid 3.6.4
German and Portugese language files updated.
First attempt by me at creating a Windows executable.
Scid 3.6.3
edited all the tcl/lang/*.tcl files (except english.tcl)
and added the following 3 lines
o
o
menuText ? PgnColorMain "Main line..." 0
menuText ? PgnColorCurrent "Current move background..." 1
menuText ? PgnColorNextMove "Next move background..." 0
where the '?' is a letter for that countries translation.
This ensures that there are no errors if a different language is
selected, but
of course, the message is still in English.
--------------------------------
Your ChangeLog.old above looks remarkably like the ChangeLog of ChessDB,
http://chessdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/chessdb/chessdb/ChangeLog?revision=1.1.1.1&view=markup
which was commited to CVS at Tue Dec 26 19:37:27 2006 UTC - almost a
week before your first release which was in 2007.
sparrow /export/home/drkirkby % ls -ld scid-3.6.1-pg.1
drwx------ 10 drkirkby animals 1024 Jan 1 2007 scid-3.6.1-pg.1
would you not agree?
Your ChangeLog.old uses a very different naming convention to what you
state you are using in ChangeLog.
IF you did apply any patches, please tell me
1) Where you got them from
2) How you applied them.
since at this point in time, I believe you probalby just copied it all
from me.
> I already plublicly acknowledged that Scid 3.6.18 and even Pocket Scid
> could not exist without you : you can even claim that *all* changes in
> Scid are directly or indirectly from you.
Just list the code you did copy from me!
There is no need at all to say I wrote it all - anyone looking will know
that is rubbish, so will dismiss it. I would rather you listed what you
actually copied from me.
> Seriously, who cares ? Certainly not me. The way you *need* to state
> *You* wrote this misspelling or those 3 lines of code make me think
> about your deep motivations.
You have never satisfactorily answered how you got any of the code that
is common to ChessDB and your scid-pg.
If the situation was reversed and I had copied things from you and
denied it, I believe you would be a little irritated to say the least.
> Lack of recognition maybe ?
Yes *exactly* that.
> But if you start as usually your picky, arrogant and sterile arguing of
> 30+ lines, be sure I will censor it.
Clearly I can't explain the situation in 30 lines. The completely copied
ChangeLog, which you just renamed ChangeLog.old (after replacing chessdb
to scid of course) is 26 lines.
Honestly Pascal, I know you told me once "you were a fighter" but I
really don't know why you do not give up denying you copied all of the
code from ChessDB.
There is an expression in England which is something like: "When you
find yourself in a hole, stop digging!!"
I'll let you did youself in a bit deeper if you want - just do not ask
me to dig you out.
It's a shame we could not have developed ChessDB together - it would
have been better than sepparate paths I think.
----------------------------
BIG CHANGE OF SUBJECT
----------------------------
On a more more serious note, IF you do decide to change the database
file format (and I have seen your arguments for and against that),
perhaps we could discuss it together in a civilized manner. (I would
try, if you would)
It would be pointless to have two very similar programs using a
different database file format if that could possibly be avoided. We
should leave that to the commercial programs.
I also think it would be inappropriate to use the obvious .sg4, .si4 and
.sn4, as I believe Shane had been working on version 4. An obvious thing
missing (to me anyway), which I have not seen you mention, is the *time*
of the game. With many games played on chess servers with an accurate
time (not just date) stamp, it would allow games to be sorted in the
order in which they were played.
It seems unlikely we will ever develop a complete program together, but
something as important as the database format, it might be better if we
could come to a common decision. I'm intending to rename the sc_* files
to ch_* or similar, so our two programs could co-exist without any
problems at all on the same computer.
Pascal
> I do not actually believe you applied *any* patches from the internet
> yourself - I believe you copied them *all* from me. The first few
> versions of your code made no mention of any patches found on the
> internet - that little snippit of information was only added to your
> ChangeLog and your web pages after I bought it to your attention.
> No mention of patches from the internet is there? Your *own*
> modifications. I guess you must have forgotten you applied some patches.
Sorry Dave, I started working on Scid in 2003 (by myself, with few
contacts with Shane Hudson, I admit), and maybe you will forgive me one
day for not having traced all what I did, and forgive me again, this is
still the case today.
> IF you did apply any patches, please tell me
>
> 1) Where you got them from
> 2) How you applied them.
Please could you make a google search for me and paste the result here ?
> since at this point in time, I believe you probalby just copied it all
> from me.
If you want, yes. That's *no problem* for me. Believe it. Why would I
deny it when it is true ? Why would I admit it when it's false ?
>> I already plublicly acknowledged that Scid 3.6.18 and even Pocket Scid
>> could not exist without you : you can even claim that *all* changes in
>> Scid are directly or indirectly from you.
>
> Just list the code you did copy from me!
Dave, I am sorry but *you* are the one that wants to be rewarded. I am
the bad boy : please do the list yourself and I will acknowledge it. And
don't worry, I will never waste my time trying to check if what you
claim is from a patch from another guy or you.
But please, can you give the number of lines of *code* I have *stolen*
from you ? Just for my information. Please.
> There is no need at all to say I wrote it all - anyone looking will know
> that is rubbish, so will dismiss it. I would rather you listed what you
> actually copied from me.
I would like. I can't. Can you help me (just the number of lines of code
*you* wrote, with those relevent lines if that does not bother you) ?
You make the claim, so be precise please : n-u-m-b-e-r o-f l-i-n-e-s o-f
c-o-d-e you claim, please.
> If the situation was reversed and I had copied things from you and
> denied it, I believe you would be a little irritated to say the least.
Not at all. I personaly like to contribute and my best wish would
someone else maintaining Scid and me contributing to it *anonymously*.
My motivations are coding for fun with people loving chess computers.
Nothing else. To maintain Scid is more burden than pleasure (like for
any software), and this is the part of the game I really don't like.
>> Lack of recognition maybe ?
>
> Yes *exactly* that.
I see. I am sorry. But we have opposite personalities.
>> But if you start as usually your picky, arrogant and sterile arguing
>> of 30+ lines, be sure I will censor it.
>
> Clearly I can't explain the situation in 30 lines. The completely copied
> ChangeLog, which you just renamed ChangeLog.old (after replacing chessdb
> to scid of course) is 26 lines.
You need 30+ lines to explain the situation, could you simply tell how
many lines of *code* you claim to have written yourself and that I took ?
> Honestly Pascal, I know you told me once "you were a fighter" but I
> really don't know why you do not give up denying you copied all of the
> code from ChessDB.
I admit it. I admit it. I admit it.
Please, who won a prize ?
But *frankly*, if that's it, I will stop drinking.
But I really don't care. So I will continue drinking.
> There is an expression in England which is something like: "When you
> find yourself in a hole, stop digging!!"
The hole is in the sea here ! Why do I say that ? Because NOBODY cares.
> I'll let you did youself in a bit deeper if you want - just do not ask
> me to dig you out.
>
> It's a shame we could not have developed ChessDB together - it would
> have been better than sepparate paths I think.
I am certainly one of the persons in the world that ate the most forks.
This is a major waste of time and skills. And one of the few dangers for
OSS (the others being lawyers and "defenders" of OSS who use outrageous
arguments).
This is why I proposed to you a "gentleman agreement" one day : continue
Scid's development without the 1600+ substitutions of Scid for chessdb
(once, a person that had write access to Scid's CVS wrote to me "it was
certainly not the first thing to do" or something like that). Please
don't reenter the war, but I persist to think that it is the least for
Shane Hudson and to preserve the future, whatever happens.
And let's try to test my english skills :
if you agree that Scid is an abandonned software (the case at SF), (some
people call it "ghost" on my guest book), a fork can only exist if the
main road contnues, right ? If the road is ended and one guy comes with
his tools and continue the road : do you call it a "fork" ?
What I try to mean, with some difficulties, I confess, is that we could
make something together by "continuing" the road ?
I am ready to discuss about the opportunity of chessDB or Scid namings,
but there are certainly some mid-terms that would avoid the massive
renamings someone did one day, don't you think? Just call the result
"Scid2 3.6.x" or what you want (we saw worst namings with Sun).
As I already said, I received a mail from SH (but you said I did not, so
let's *suppose* I received it) and that SH told me "and I hope to
rectify this over the next few weeks," : it was in Feb. What does this
mean : he has the will to keep up with Scid, but has big personal
problems (we know that), because we saw nothing after these "few weeks",
and believe me it would have been a great relief for me if he came back
! So my feeling is that, even if SH never comes back he deserves the
name to be kept. If he comes back, all the better : people took care of
his baby and he let me understand it was ok for him !
The ideal situation for me would be :
- to continue Scid's dev. in the (dark and dull) background;
- you take over Scid2's dev as today with chessDB
- meanwhile I try to have a killer app on PocketPC with ScidPocket (it's
in in good way), but always in the background.
Please, if there is 1% of chance for you to consider this, DO NOT
CONSIDER THIS AS A GIVE UP PROPOSAL FOR YOU : this is exactly the opposite !
And please consider with a cool head, not in conflictual mood.
What is important is the PRODUCT ! The RESULT of work !
Pascal
David Richerby
> For instance, the Vienna Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4. Many
> players who don't know this position think they can treat it like a
> King's Gambit with knights developed earlier, and they accept the
> gambit pawn with 3. ... exf4. In this position, though, that's a
> blunder due to 4. e5, forcing the f6 knight to retreat to its
>
> And 3. ... fxe4 seems like a reasonable move at first glance, to
> someone who hasn't seen this position before.
1) Don't play the first move that comes into your head.
2) The opening principles that development and the centre are
important tell you that 4.e5 is strong here.
> And you've got Heisman's definition of "hope chess" wrong. He uses
> that term to describe playing a move without looking at your
> opponent's possible responses, just hoping that they don't have a
> good response.
Yes, you're right.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Gigantic Mexi-Composer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pupil of Beethoven that comes from
Mexico but it's huge!
Guy Macon
Pascal wrote:
> "defenders" of OSS who use outrageous arguments).
Translation: The arguments are sound, I cannot refute them, so
I will just call them outrageous and hope nobody notices.
>if you agree that Scid is an abandonned software (the case at SF),
Sourceforge doesn't agree with that. They said so when they
refused to let you take it over. It's been what, a year?
That's not long enough to call a project abandoned.
>a fork can only exist if the main road contnues, right ?
Wrong. Have you ever been on a road and ecounered a fork
in the road? One road splits into two roads. If the main
road continues, that's called an intersection or offramp,
not a fork.
>If the road is ended and one guy comes with his tools and
>continue the road
There are at least three people who have forked off of
(the real) Scid.
>I am ready to discuss about the opportunity of chessDB or Scid namings,
>but there are certainly some mid-terms that would avoid the massive
>renamings someone did one day, don't you think? Just call the result
>"Scid2 3.6.x" or what you want (we saw worst namings with Sun).
If you call your program "Scid2" I would have no objections
at all. Just stop pretending that it is Scid. It isn't.
It isn't fair when two people start forks for one of them
-- and not the first either -- to take the name of the original.
>The ideal situation for me would be :
>- to continue Scid's dev. in the (dark and dull) background;
>- you take over Scid2's dev as today with chessDB
WHAT? You want to keep pretending that your program is the
original Scid and have *CheesDB* change names? Pure Chutzpa!
You need to stop taking names that don't belong to you without
getting permission from the owner.
Pascal
> Pascal wrote:
>
>> "defenders" of OSS who use outrageous arguments).
>
> Translation: The arguments are sound, I cannot refute them, so
> I will just call them outrageous and hope nobody notices.
No sir, this is my experience with people that pretends to represent OSS
in front of people wearing ties, and that pretended to represent the
Truth with outrageous words (like you MUST use OSS, only OSS works, we
are 25, just out of school, but we are the best in Software Engineering,
I forgot more than you will never learn, etc.). They usually get a quick
"show stop". This is what happened to them (more over they were 45 min
late!). For someone that likes OSS, I was not really at ease with my tie.
>> The ideal situation for me would be :
>> - to continue Scid's dev. in the (dark and dull) background;
>> - you take over Scid2's dev as today with chessDB
>
> WHAT? You want to keep pretending that your program is the
> original Scid and have *CheesDB* change names? Pure Chutzpa!
You have misunderstood me. My proposition :
("My" Scid + chessDB) = Scid2
But Guy, I am really serious and kind (and patient) here : your general
way of presenting things does not rise your credit at a very high level.
Diplomacy and humility is sometimes good, whatever your background (and
moreover you don't know your readers').
Pascal
Dave
enough of this.
> I see. I am sorry. But we have opposite personalities.
Yes - very much so.
> You need 30+ lines to explain the situation, could you simply tell how
> many lines of *code* you claim to have written yourself and that I took ?
a) I don't know
b) That is not sufficient space to explain a complex situation.
// A lot cut out - I really have had enough of this today.
> And let's try to test my english skills :
> if you agree that Scid is an abandonned software (the case at SF), (some
> people call it "ghost" on my guest book), a fork can only exist if the
> main road contnues, right ?
I do not believe that your description of a fork is the one most
commonly used. I know you are very keen to state your line of code was a
continuation and mine a fork. I believe they are both forks.
But I do not think there is universal agreement on exactly what is a
software fork.
If the road is ended and one guy comes with
> his tools and continue the road : do you call it a "fork" ?
Ask me the definition of an Amp, a Volt, second, etc, I can could tell
you. But as for a software fork, I am less sure.
> I am ready to discuss about the opportunity of chessDB or Scid namings,
> but there are certainly some mid-terms that would avoid the massive
> renamings someone did one day, don't you think? Just call the result
> "Scid2 3.6.x" or what you want (we saw worst namings with Sun).
You may not agree with the name change. But I believe my startup window
make is *very* clear most of the code came from Shane.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/t_intro_start.php
It's hard to believe really that anyone would have any doubts, with the
program printing each time it starts up that more than 90% of the code
is from Scid and Shane was the main author of Scid. Every user should
see that - not only those which read the source code, which is a
minority of users.
The README thanks you for some help for producing me the first windows
binary. The THANKS window obviously thanks Shane, but you too. If I have
omitted anyone, it is by accident rather than purpose.
Hence I don't feel guilty about it. I think it was the right thing to do.
The name change is very common in software
Fruit is no longer developed, but there is Gambit Fruit and there is
Toga. I think it would be rather silly to have 3 different chess
engines, all called Fruit. There was a fork of Scid prior to ours, which
was to be called 'newscid', but in later dropped using Scid's code and
became ChessX.
I'm quite happy with the name change to ChessDB.
> As I already said, I received a mail from SH (but you said I did not, so
> let's *suppose* I received it)
I did *not* say you did not receive the mail. I said I don't know
whether or not to believe you. You have told me several porkies (as we
say here in England), so you should not be too surprised at my scepticism.
> The ideal situation for me would be :
> - to continue Scid's dev. in the (dark and dull) background;
> - you take over Scid2's dev as today with chessDB
> - meanwhile I try to have a killer app on PocketPC with ScidPocket (it's
> in in good way), but always in the background.
I wish you luck with the Pocket PC. You will find several posts from me
(not always my full name or correct email) about chess programs for
Pocket PC. I've tried several - Pocket Grandmaster (the best I have
tried to date), Pocket Fritz 2, Intellichess and several more.
Things I felt where missing from the Pocket PC world were:
1) A good database - an issue you are I believe addressing. Te best I
found was the free CEboard, but that had nowhere near the fuctionality
of Scid or ChessDB.
2) Any sensible way to connect to the chess servers. Intellichess allows
you to play on ICC, but in the version I tried, it was just about
unusable. One could only play as guest, the pieces were hard to see.
When I promoted a pawn to a queen it remained looking like a pawn...
Very often it was not possible to move without typing the moves in on
the command line, as it would not accept them from the mouse.
3) ChessBases Pocket Fritz 2 had a nice feature where you could look up
a specific game on their database. That was until they changed the
database a bit, so this most useful feature of Pocket Fritz 2 stopped
working. I was told fixing it was not a priority. You will find some
posts by me on that topic. (If you ever wanted to put an online database
on web server and a way to look it up from a PDA, I think that would be
useful. One can easily get a large database (I put one of 3.5 million
games on a couple of servers recently. It is less easy to
I tend to carry my laptop with me now pretty much all the time, so there
is less need for the PDA now, hence my interest in the pocket PC code is
a little less than a year or so ago.
I use a telnet client (tcltelnet) in ChessDB to download games from ICC
and FICS. It could be used to send arbitary commands to ICC and so could
be used to play games. I'm not keen to develop too much in that
direction, prefering to keep to Shane#s goal of a database. Also, I
think there are more cabable interfaces.
On pocket PC, there i far less choice of programs from ICC and FICS.
> Please, if there is 1% of chance for you to consider this, DO NOT
> CONSIDER THIS AS A GIVE UP PROPOSAL FOR YOU : this is exactly the
> opposite !
I will consider any serious proposal - but not today.
Dave
> I've made the bare minimum of a reply to some questions. I have had
> Very often it was not possible to move without typing the moves in on
> the command line, as it would not accept them from the mouse.
Of course I did not mean to say mouse, on the PDA
pascal....@free.fr
> > I am ready to discuss about the opportunity of chessDB or Scid namings,
> > but there are certainly some mid-terms that would avoid the massive
> > renamings someone did one day, don't you think? Just call the result
> > "Scid2 3.6.x" or what you want (we saw worst namings with Sun).
>
> You may not agree with the name change. But I believe my startup window
> make is *very* clear most of the code came from Shane.
I never said the opposite !
Shane was, is, and will always be rewarded for his great work by
everybody (users and developers) : look at Scid for Pocket : 95% of
the code is still exactly the same as what he wrote years ago. So the
only rewards I'd make for ScidPocket : Shane Hudson, and Evolane.
> http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/tutorial/t_intro_start.php
>
> It's hard to believe really that anyone would have any doubts, with the
> program printing each time it starts up that more than 90% of the code
> is from Scid and Shane was the main author of Scid. Every user should
> see that - not only those which read the source code, which is a
> minority of users.
That is sure. I never meant anything else.
> The README thanks you for some help for producing me the first windows
> binary. The THANKS window obviously thanks Shane, but you too. If I have
> omitted anyone, it is by accident rather than purpose.
*I* also may omit people. But that is not exactly the same as
forgetting to send a payment, even if omitting people is something
that people should avoid.
> Hence I don't feel guilty about it. I think it was the right thing to do.
>
> The name change is very common in software
Yes it is. Look at Borland, changed to Inprise then, ooops, go back to
Borland. My conviction is that the product and the preservation/
preparation of the future are more important.
> Fruit is no longer developed, but there is Gambit Fruit and there is
> Toga. I think it would be rather silly to have 3 different chess
> engines, all called Fruit. There was a fork of Scid prior to ours, which
> was to be called 'newscid', but in later dropped using Scid's code and
> became ChessX.
First let's hope the strongest challenger of Scid reach the 1.0
milestone soon. What they do at ChessX is interesting (and I love Qt).
Second you will notice they used "newscid" (the name Scid remained),
and I doubt (I did not check) that they renamed the internals (Scid
tokens).
Concerning Fruit, it has never been abandonned by Fabien Letouzey (too
many french people around there don't you think ?), and if I
understood well, Gambit Fruit, Toga, etc. were developed because
Fabien decided to close Fruit's code (and it appears that, after a
commercial period, Fruit 2.3.1 is again free).
> I'm quite happy with the name change to ChessDB.
Ok, but please consider I make a huge step toward you. I hope this
will suffice (if i make a bigger step, I will lose balance and fall at
once).
And *maybe* my arguments related to Scid's name in internal are not
*so* bad.
> I wish you luck with the Pocket PC. You will find several posts from me
> (not always my full name or correct email) about chess programs for
> Pocket PC. I've tried several - Pocket Grandmaster (the best I have
> tried to date), Pocket Fritz 2, Intellichess and several more.
In my opinion, with ScidPocket, there are only 2 challengers on the
PDA market left for me :
- Palm Hiarcs (the choice of the heart, don't ask me why :-) );
- Pocket CT ART.
> Things I felt where missing from the Pocket PC world were:
>
> 1) A good database - an issue you are I believe addressing. Te best I
> found was the free CEboard, but that had nowhere near the fuctionality
> of Scid or ChessDB.
And moreover, Alain is a really nice guy (and it appears we have many
things in common : our first dedicated chess computer was the same : a
Chess Challenger 7), but I could not correctly use CEBoard on my Dell.
I know he is working on it (he even borrowed a x51v for this, because
this is the PDA I have : when I say he is nice !).
> I tend to carry my laptop with me now pretty much all the time, so there
> is less need for the PDA now, hence my interest in the pocket PC code is
> a little less than a year or so ago.
When I ported chess engines to PalmOpenChess, I felt that engines are
better on PDA because of the lack of CPU power. On a PC when an engine
tells you "score = 1.5 at ply 14", I am unable to see where the pawn
will be lost. But when two engines fight on a PDA, I can watch it and
understand what is going on, and have more fun at it.
Hiarcs is between 2400 and 2600 ELO FIDE on a PDA : far enough for
me ! And the Toga I ported (calculating at 20000-30000 nps) is
certainly close to those levels.
> On pocket PC, there i far less choice of programs from ICC and FICS.
This is why I changed the way ScidPocket communicates with the
engines : I used sockets but this leads to sync problem when the user
starts/stops his internet connection. So I switched to Message
Queueing, which leaves TCP/IP stack away.
> > Please, if there is 1% of chance for you to consider this, DO NOT
> > CONSIDER THIS AS A GIVE UP PROPOSAL FOR YOU : this is exactly the
> > opposite !
>
> I will consider any serious proposal - but not today.
This proposal is serious. I hope you don't doubt about it.
I am glad you intend to consider it with cool head, because all the
sterile and puerile mess here hardly permit deep and wise thoughts,
for the least.
Pascal
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> in the road? One road splits into two roads. If the main
> road continues, that's called an intersection or offramp,
> not a fork.
In source control terms, it is a branch.
Guy Macon
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Have you ever been on a road and encountered a fork
>> in the road? One road splits into two roads. If the main
>> road continues, that's called an intersection or offramp,
>> not a fork.
>
>In source control terms, it is a branch.
While I am aware of that particular usage and have been
involved in projects where that usage is the norm,
I was using the terms as used by Linus Torvalds in
[ http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-12/msg00810.html ])
"Basically, by 'branch' I mean something that fundamentally
is part of the 'official site.' [...] A 'fork' is something
where people can just take the tree and do their own thing
to it." --Linus Torvalds
And as used in _To Fork or Not To Fork: Lessons From
Ubuntu and Debian_ by Benjamin "Mako" Hill
[ http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html ]
"A fork occurs on the level of code but a fork is not
merely -- or even primarily -- technical. Many projects
create 'branches.' Branches are alternative versions
of a piece of software used to experiment with intrusive
or unstable features and fixes. Forks are distinguished
from branches both in that they are often more
significant departures from a technical perspective
(i.e., more lines of code have been changed and/or
the changes are more invasive or represent a more
fundamental rethinking of the problem) and in that
they are bifurcations defined in social and
political terms. Branches involve a single developer
or community of developers -- even if it does boil
down to distinct subgroups within a community --
whereas forks are separate projects." --Benjamin Mako Hill
And as used in the _Free Software Project Management
HOWTO_ by Benjamin "Mako" Hill
http://mako.cc/projects/howto/FreeSoftwareProjectManagement-HOWTO.html
"A fork is when a group of developers takes code from
a free software project and actually starts a brand
new free software project with it." --Benjamin "Mako" Hill
For those interested in learning more about Source
Control, there is an excellent Source Control HOWTO at
[ http://www.ericsink.com/scm/source_control.html ].
----------------------------------------------------
Then again, why try to introduce another term when the
person I am talking to (Pascal) refuses to accept some
rather basic concepts of fairness? I figured that
doing so would only muddy the water further.
To recap:
The author of an Open Source program stopped work for
personal reasons without naming someone to take over.
At least two people decided to continue the work, each
taking it in somewhat different directions.
The first author to start extending the program picked
a new name, clearly gave credit to the original author,
and made it clear that he is not the original author
and that his program is not the original program but is
instead a derivative work. He also set up a new
sourceforge page for the new derivative program.
The second author to start extending the program claims
that his derivative program and his alone is a new
version of the original program and that the first
author's derivative program is not. He attempted and
failed to take over the original author's sourceforge
page, then took the name of the original program as
the name of his derivative program without the permission
of the original author. He cannot have a sourceforge page
because sourceforge won't allow him to use the name of
an existing project.
To add insult to injury, the author of the second program
appears to have used the first as his starting point, not
the original program, and incorporated comments including
typos that are found only in the source code to the first
program.
Any elementary school student can see that this is simply
not fair. There is no reason to favor one author above
the other, no reason why one author or the other should be
the one allowed to take the name of the original program.
Even if there was a reason to favor one over the other the
first program has a slightly better claim to be the favored
one.
David Richerby
>> I'm not going to spend a long time hunting for things but it's
>> implicit in
>>
>> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm
> several related things:
>
> [1] Whether registration of a mark is required (no)
>
> [2] How to establish rights in a mark (legitimate use)
No. `You can establish rights in a mark *based on* legitimate use.'
(My emphasis.) In other words, your legitimate use of a mark allows
you to establish rights. `Establish,' here, means `cause to come into
existence' rather than `demonstrate by argument.' It's the sense of
`Guy Macon Electronics Inc., Established 1983', not `I have
established that you are an electronic engineer.'
Dave.
--
David Richerby Sadistic Flower (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ flower but it wants to hurt you!