Questions have been raised on the Rybka Chess forum about Gothic Vortex being derived from the Crafty source code. That disucssion is here:

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/t....pl?tid=1986#fp

One person wants the Gothic Vortex source code, claiming a "right" to it under the OpenSource licensing attached to Crafty.

I claim that Bob Hyatt gave us explicit permission to market a commercial program that was NOT bound by the OpenSource constraints, based on this:



The debate centers on whether or not this "infringes" on an individual's right to request the Gothic Vortex source code.

I claim Gothic Vortex is not open source.

So far, I have won the debate.

:)

I don't see how anyone could claim Vortex was OpenSource. The Crafty license obviously applies just to chess programs, and Vortex isn't a chess program at all.

Another case of Trice doing what he wants when he wants I see. Read the Open Source License, dirt bag. You can't distribute your program without complying with the license of it's an illegal copy, plain and simple. Open Source has been around long before Crafty, so what Hyatt said don't mean squat!

You've got to give up your code or give up selling Vortex, which is it?

Honestly, upon further review, I find the whole Intellectual Property angle of this to be a bit sketchy, even if legal. Claiming a patent based on rearranging a couple of pieces in someone else's idea was obviously enough to convince the US Patent Office, but I'm much more prone to tip my hat to the previous work in this area. If champions as great as Capablanca and Lasker had no problem with one unprotected pawn, well, neither do I. I'll push it and get on with playing.

This "use previously open source code for a commercial product" angle to make the "patent a starting position" angle all the less impressive.

Try doing this:

Create your own setup for the back row. Make sure that:

1. The game plays as much like chess as possible.
2. Your pawns are all defended in the starting position (or else white to move can win)
3. There are no imbalances in the game.

It's a lot harder than you think, and saying that I "just changed the pieces around" is a major insult. The variants I tried to come up with were play-tested over a period of about 6 years when I was an active tournament player touring the country playing chess. I had feedback from hundreds of players.

Capablanca's game is far too biased. I started off 32-0 in Capablanca Chess as white against an average USCF class of 1845 before I lost my first game. That was much too good of a performance to attribute to me. As black, I was a rocky 14-18 in my first 32 games. Why? The game is highly favorable to the white players.

The reasons:

1. The undefended i-pawn means you basically can't castle kingside as black, 1 tempo behind. White gets a double-attack against the i-pawn for free by virtue of moving first and avoiding castling before you. That way, 2 moves are gained, playing first, and not castling.

2. The 3-diagonal pieces in a row (Archbishop, Bishop, Queen) are all gunning for the weakest segment of the board in the vicinity of the i-pawn.

3. Castling queenside as black is too hard, because, again, you are behind 2 moves. You have to deal with the exposure on the kingside, and you need the extra move to castle queenside. I have mated several opponents on the move they castled queenside by playing Axa7# with their knight off of c6. The Archbishop on a7 checks the king on c8 like a knight, the rook on d8 exhausts a flight square for the king, and the king can't go to b8 since an a7 Archbishop controls that square like a Bishop.

No wonder Capablanca liked the game. He would never lose as white, and he could probably fight off imperfect play and draw as black. We know he was obsessive about not losing, with only 26 losses in tournaments spanning 29 years.

Like I said, the patent is aimed at preventing vulture companies from swooping in and stealing this great game.

The Crafty source code was an arrangement I had with Hyatt and has nothing to do with the patent.

I don't understand why other people don't just modify the crafty code to make an 80-bit engine themselves.

P.S. Capablanca didn't invent his game all by himself either. He changed the placement of the Archbishop and Bishop on the Queenside, and Chancellor and Bishop on the Kingside, borrowing from Henry Bird's 1874 arrangement.

Yey nobody seems to mention this, I wonder why?

Being a Gothic fan myself i'm a bit worried about others claiming Embassy-Chess to have more optimal setup. I remember somekind of symmetry tests where only Embassy and Optimized chess setups have passed.

Like gothic it also retains a chess-like starting position.. Plus it follows the respected tradition of King and Queen placed side by side.

The downside I can find in Embassy setup is that it's castling rule is less natural than gothics.

Ed, can you give some more inspiration why the gothic setup is better?

Ed contacted Hyatt upfront about all of this. Hyatt gave his permission for him to work on his program. I don't see what the fuss is about.

Just remember that your tone must be appropriate when addressing others in this forum. Argue all you want about the points you debate, just don't degenerate to name calling.

I won't issue a warning for it this time, but don't resort to this again.

I know that Capablanca didn't "invent" it, either. But he also didn't try to patent it. That's pretty important, in this context.

As for the balance issue, I don't know. I mean, you seem like a decent enough and intelligent enough person who is clearly a better player than I, but is it all that foolish of me to favor the idea of those two great champions (Capablanca and Lasker) sitting across from one another and playing it out and making their choice? I admit to not knowing it all, though. Even Orthodox Chess has fool's mates.

And I would agree that Embassy and other arrangements have advantages. The "Gothic" (I'm sorry, as a student of history, this just makes me wince) setup obviously has strengths. I must like something about it, or else I wouldn't be here.

I don't like to be insulting, and in retrospect, I do sincerely apologize for the harsh words in my last post. That said, the patent does do a *lot* more than prevent the "swooping in" that you mention. The thin availability of pieces has to at least in part be attributed to that little bit of legality. If a vulture company swooping in meant I could get a decent wooden set for under $900, I'd be happy about it. And I'm sorry, aesthetics are of some relevance. Both the term "Gothic" (which seems to make no sense whatsoever in this context) and the design of the only inexpensive set in existence set off my taste meter (ugh, those knights!). I don't know how to express that criticism any more gently, so I am sorry if I stumble into insult yet again.

I'll walk away from the source code issue but assert that things digital are my career. In some other situations, once Open Source (GNU or otherwise) licensing is in effect, an individual programmer's permission to the maker of a given commercial product may no longer be relevant. That said, the specifics are not all available to me. But there is an obvious irony to the whole situation.

Embassy Chess has some obvious flaws.

1. Castling queenside is "castling short". By that I mean, you move the King to the Knight's file, which is usually done when castling kingside. So, your Kingside castle in Embassy as white looks like a kingside castle does for you as Black in regular chess: namely, you move "to the left" and are one file away from the rook's file. Castling kingside in Embassy is "castling long", and your Kings ends up in the Bishop's file. This is very confusing and it makes one feel like they are playing with the colors reversed. That is, a white player castling queenside feels like a black player castling kingside.


2. Using conservative values other than my own, there are 20 pawns worth of material on the queenside (R = 5, N = 3, B = 3, Q = 9) and 29 pawns worth of material on the kingside (K = 3, C = 8, A = 7, B = 3, N = 3, R = 5). [Note: we say K = 3, since a king can reach 8 squares in the center of the board, the same number of legal moves as a knight, so it has a corresponding equivalent value.] In chess, there is only 14 pawns worth of material on the kingside. This is a huge imbalance. Chess is usually 20-14 = +6 pawns heavier on the Queenside. Embassy is 29-20 = +9 pawns heavier on the Kingside. Then means Embassy is over +9 - (-6) = +15 pawns skewed from the normal kingside/queenside balance of regular chess.

Put another way: There's way too much material on the right of the king when viewed from white's persective.

3. My one game as White in Embassy was a total whitewash over the game's biggest proponent on BrainKing.com:

which you can see here:

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=2066372

Yet look at the effort I had to exert to win with black:

which you can see here:

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=2066373

Obviously, white to move is seriously advantageous in that game.

This is a common fallacy of thinking: "If it was good enough for them, then it's good enough for me."

There is a simple fact here: They simply didn't play enough games to figure out that Capablanca's chess was a severe imbalance. In October of 1998, I founded the Gothic Chess Association with the idea of re-popularizing Capablanca's Chess. By the year 2000, I realized his setup was flawed. It took over a year and hundreds and hundreds of games for this to finally sink in. As Capablanca was preparing to face Alekhine AFTER he made Capablanca's chess, he had more pressing issues on his mind and never revisited it.

Ask yourself this question: If his game was so good, how could a genius like Capablanca NOT influence enough people to get them to reconsider modifying the rules of chess to allow the new pieces to be used?

The reason: The game was just not playable.

Download http://www.GothicChess.com/80.pdf and read some of my reasons, complete with diagrams and analysis.

Incorrect also.

It cost us over $200,000 to get cavity molds produced to make the sets we sell, after paying for the first production run, the CAD designer, and the prototypers.

That is the "barrier to market entry", not the legality. Think about it. Sign a piece of paper, and you're in. Done.

Make your own pieces. $200,000 down. With a $20 margin per set (if you're lucky) you need to sell 10,000 sets to break even from the costs, and figure 35,000 sets to break even from your operations expenses.

Do you see now how things are not as "simplistic" as you may have thought?

Well, I spoke to Bob Hyatt on the phone today. He remembered me, he remembered my post from long ago (once I reminded him) and he agreed: The OpenSource license was waived as it was applied to chess, and only chess, in terms of crafty's requirements.

His email address and phone number are widely available if you type "Hyatt" and "Crafty" in a google search engine. He is very communicative and he can confirm all of this.

Everything else spoken by others is irrelevant: The agreement is between him and I, and not myself and the OpenSource community at large.

Two quick thoughts:

1) I know you are feeling on the defensive from my initial post in this thread, but I think you'd be much more persuasive if you didn't come across as so dismissive of the prior work on this. This is the first time in all the poking around that I found anything about you initially wanting to promote Capablanca's game. That basis makes everything else more palatable. It shows you trying to evolve something, as opposed to presenting a supposedly out of the blue invention without any acknowledgment of the literally centuries of prior work. I was glad to read it.

2) To what degree do you own the rights to make a set with 10 pawns, 2 rooks, 2 bishops, 2 knights, a chancellor, an archbishop, a queen and a king? If the degree is zero, then yes, my notion of the patent limiting piece availability is off the table. If you do own those rights by virtue of your patent, then are you saying that you do not demand and have not demanded any royalty of any kind on sets made of that sort? Are you getting a cut from House of Staunton on their set? Manufacturing is another matter, and yes, I do know there are up front costs. Molds are a plastic matter and don't enter into it for wooden sets (which, if automated at all, are a matter of CNC programming, which I have done and I know comes far cheaper than plastic molds). The raw material expense is greater, yes, specifying a higher price point and thus increased risk on initial marketing. And there are always up front expenses for any business endeavor. But making the two extra pieces and two extra pawns and offering them is not a particularly daunting issue for an existing chess set manufacturer, when introducing new set designs every year can be common for some. Perhaps the game just isn't popular enough for them to bother yet. But for an existing manufacturer, a royalty agreement could be more daunting than setting up to make two new pieces.

What is on the piece of paper that someone has to sign to be "in"? If there's neither a royalty nor any other stipulation that may make a business uneasy, then my concern vanishes. In what regard do you enforce the patent?

On Vortex, the question of your prior agreement is in the issue of the content of *his* work, but honestly, I have no desire to argue that with you. I have no beef with Vortex. All I want to know is whether there is any impediment whatsoever to existing chess manufacturers making Bird/Capablanca/Gothic/etc sets resulting from your patent.

An older version of the website from 2003 elaborates a great deal on the "history" of our organization and its initial notion of bringing Capablanca Chess back to life:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030711200636/...ong_answer.html

It's a long read but some important historical data is there. It also shows a hand made wooden set my father made for me in 2003.

About the patent: People can make all the pieces they want, even the newer pieces, and sell them in whatever quantity they want. If their "rules" include the Gothic Chess starting configuration, they have infringed on the patent if they have not set up a licensing agreement with me.

Basically, sell Embassy chess or anything else all you want. Say something as innocent as "If you instead change the places of the Chancellor and King..." and you have violated the patent.

The method of play is patented, not the pieces, their design, or anything else.

So, even software programs must pay a royalty. It's small, typically 7.5% of the gross sales.

Regarding making pieces: Again you need more information.

A chess set is not 8 pawns per color, 2 rooks per color, etc.

It is one cavity mold with 16 pawns of no color, 4 rooks of no color, 2 kings of no color, etc.

Once the mold opens up and drops out a set, then they are post-processed and colorized.

So, "just adding 2 extra pieces" is not really a concept. A mold is engineered to spawn a complete set per "pour". While you could just "carve out" more from a mold, this is never done in practice. The reason stems from how a mold is cut to begin with. A machine cut is based on input from something known as an ".stl file" which is an output from a CAD drawing. You can't "adjust" an existing 3D mold that way, you'd have to carve one out from scratch.

And that's expensive, as previously noted.

The piece of paper is simple: Agree to pay 7.5% of your gross receivables, subject to audit confirmation (which have their own stipulations) requests from time to time. If an audit is requested and passed, there is a bonus I pay to them. If an audit is requested and they fail, that's a different story. It just costs them more than had they been compliant.

Does this make things more clear?

I've done the CNC (CAD work specific to robotic woodworking equipment) work for other products. I wasn't talking about molded plastic pieces. I was talking about wood. You *can* quite easily just add two pieces to a CNC program for that, as good coding is modular. It does take some programming work and up front expense, but it is not the same level of investment as a full on polymer pouring operation, especially considering the relative design simplicity and the inevitability of considerable hand work (which requires only having the craftsman decide on a new shape and do it a few times in practice). I acknowledged what barriers there were in making new wood pieces in my last post. And of course, those still making sets by hand using cheap labor have an entirely different process.

By way of example, that House of Staunton set, according to them, is exactly a Collector series set with two added pieces and two extra pawns. Thats how it works with wood.

Anyway, you've answered my concern without need for a manufacturing debate. And I'm only concerned with pieces - playing chess on a computer has never done it for me (I stare a those screens enough at work all day). If they don't use your product's name or display or refer to your patented piece arrangement in any way, then they don't owe you a dime. If they think your promotion of that name is worth doing so, they use the name and cut you in.

Done deal. Concern satisfied.

Pretty much. But, if they are investing that much time and effort, they should also think long term. Gothic Chess outsells the sum of every other 10x8 variant because nobody else sells those sets, nor are there any such tournaments.

If I find out somebody is selling Embassy sets, or Capablanca sets, I will just smile and allow them to do so.

Eventually that phone will ring and say "Do you sell Gothic Chess sets?" more and more, and they have to say "No" every time. And if they follow with a "...but you can..." and advise the party on the other line how they can circumvent the patent, that crime is viewed much worse than unintentional infringement, since it is no longer a civil violation, it is a criminal violation. And Gothic Chess zealots will tell me if this is the case. That's how I find out about all instances of infringement. (Read this for example: http://www.gothicchess.com/nalls.html )

They might eventually call me and want a Gothic Chess license, seeing how demand is driving business their way (as in the case of House of Staunton. After a few hundred inquiries, it made sense to get on the bandwagon.)

If, however, that hypothetical manufacturer has been selling "Capblanca sets" or Embassy or any other 10x8 arrangement without a Gothic Chess license, I might elect to refuse a license to sell Gothic Chess when one is asked of me.

Why? I know what they have been doing. They've been selling those "other" sets to people who really want to play Gothic. It's legal, of course, but it will eventually catch up to them.

If, however, they had approached me from day 1 and entered into a license arrangement, they would not only make money from their sales, they would have my full support and backing, which is considerable.

Then the notion of your patent acting as some sort of damper on the availability of pieces isn't out of line at all. Legally, that is obviously your right. If I were assessing whether I wanted to produce a set, knowing that I had to give up that 7.5% would be a serious issue. It has to be. That's true of any licensing fee. And I can say with great honesty that I personally sought a set before I'd ever heard of your game. If you read between the lines, you can see that in my first post here. In looking for a 20 piece chess set, I had seen the high end offering from House of Staunton (from whom I had just bought a standard set). I first saw your game's name there, found your site and your plastic set, and figured this forum may be a good place to find out where more moderately priced, traditionally designed wooden sets for playing what I termed "20 piece chess variants" might be found. That said, I'm not going to call you a liar. If you feel that your back rank arrangement is the driving force behind 8x10 chess, and manufacturers agree, that's the only practical consideration. If they don't agree, they can simply call it a 20 piece set, mention the names of the two added back rank pieces, refer to Capablanca and so on, and try their luck. Nobody has yet chosen to do so, supporting your assertion.

By the way, what was the motivation behind the Gothic name? Personal preference, or is there a story behind it?

I had known from so many people calling "Capablanca Chess" by the movie name, "Casablanca Chess", and from my own experience in school with teachers called me "Treece", "Tice", "Price", and the like, that there was no way I was going to call it "Trice Chess."

It just had no "ring to it" in my mind.

So, I convened a few focus groups consisting of two different strata: One could properly set up a chess board, the other could not. (Basically, those who knew how to play chess, and those who didn't.)

We showed them the 80 square board as well as a chess board. Then we let 3 weeks go by, we contacted the people again, and asked them the name of the game that had the 80 square boards.

Of all the different names we tried, "Gothic Chess" stuck as the one recalled most by both groups, across all age boundaries, and seemed universal.

We found that younger participants remembered it because of association with the "Goth culture" of kids who wore all dark colors and hang out all night thinking themselves to be vampires. Older folks made a memory connection to "Gothic Architecture" and edifices such as Notre Dame. People in the middle age bracket just remembered the name.

So, what we had was "brand potential" with this name.

And I rolled the dice and stuck with it.

Ahh, the focus group. It's the marketing way, and that explains things nicely. Thanks for being forthcoming.

Whenever I think of Gothic, I think of it as an insult. There are good reasons for that, and Wikipedia (among many other places - this was the mos convenient) points out the historical one:

"The term "Gothic", when applied to architecture, has nothing to do with the historical Goths. It was a pejorative term that came to be used as early as the 1530s by Giorgio Vasari to describe culture that was considered rude and barbaric.[1] At the time in which Vasari was writing, Italy had experienced a century of building in the Classical architectural vocabulary revived in the Renaissance and seen as the finite evidence of a new Golden Age of learning and refinement."

"In English 17th century usage, "Goth" was an equivalent of "vandal", a savage despoiler with a Germanic heritage and so came to be applied to the architectural styles of northern Europe from before the revival of classical types of architecture."

I can't imagine that was the vision you had of your game. I also figured you weren't saying this was chess for disaffected suburbanite teens in black clothing, ankhs, and too much eye makeup. That's the other reason I view the term as pejorative.

So I have a hard time using the name, and since I'm not trying to make a dime in so doing, I hope you'll understand and not take it personally. I sense you won't.

And hey, if you think the name is working for you, then that's your call, of course.

How times have changed. It's not even considered the least bit insulting today. In fact, it's "cool" to be called a "Goth" according to most kids in our neighborhood.

Sure, but as an adult who finds that kid trend to be particularly trite and contrived, to me the term gets pulled back to its pejorative roots. But hey, maybe it works for marketing purposes.

The company has been around for 9 years, much longer than most businesses survive. They must be doing something right.

Too cerebral and not enough modern context. Gothic is plenty fine as a chess adjective. In fact, it may change the pull of the "negative tide" and bring a whole new meaning to the word.

There's been huge marketing blunders over the years. Look at the Chevy Nova. They couldn't figure out why it wasn't selling in Mexico. But "No va" in Spanish means "It won't move!"

And look at a big company, like "IBM". Say it real slow. It implies taking a poop for crying out loud. "I take a poop", good name for a company!

I came right out and said that it may indeed work for marketing purposes. No argument there. It just makes me wince, as it seems nonsensical and makes me think of delusional teens. Is that such a horrible thing to say? It's not like I think I'm going to persuade the person who already made the decision to change it. I just won't use it. Nobody loses! There sure are dumber names, I know, although that IBM reference seems like a major stretch. Still funny, though. :)

Type the word "Gothic" into google some time. There's an entire industry that has sprung up around those "delusional teens." About 40% of our clients are teens. And teens get older, and become young adults, and they grow out of some of their teenage attributes in time.

In my day, it was "stone wash", "acid wash", and ripped jeans. I can't remember the last time I wore a pair, but in the 80's you could hardly find me out of them.

But, some of the things I bought in the 80's I still like. Most of my 80's music is now in my very modern iPod Nano, for example.

So, while the "Goth kids" will eventually grow out of dressing in all black and staying out all night pretending to be part vampire, those that tried the game of Gothic Chess will have more disposable income as time goes on, and they will become repeat customers, albeit for a different reason as their initial interest.

Interesting thoughts on Embassy. I think one key issue is whether or not one is focused on maintaining certain conventions from classical chess.

Both point 1. and point 2. in your post highlight that notion. The premise of queenside really loses meaning in this context, which is essentially what you are defining as a problem. And a case can certainly be made that it is. I always just reset my mind and think in terms of kingside and "chancellor side." By that notion, yes, the "short" castling side is indeed reversed. That never really freaked me out at all, but it is indeed a difference. And likewise, when framing my mind around a new kingside (after all, we're just trying to define terminology that cuts the board in half), the imbalance for Embassy is actually lesser than for classical chess (23 kingside, 26 "chancellor side"). Of course, even in your game, the chancellor is neither on the queenside nor the kingside as traditionally defined, as it is right of the queen and left of the king. Cutting the board in half, your game has far more material on the left half of the board than on the right (28 left, 21 right)

I personally have no particular hangup on those traditional side terms, but I agree that many people with lots of chess study time invested might. Others might say that your setup "confuses" them by not placing the queen next to the king, although again, I don't find it to be a problem at all.

As far as point 3. goes, surely you already know that two games between one player who is clearly stronger than the other isn't all that definitive of a measure. I'm not asserting anything about the white/black balance of Embassy, only that two games don't prove anything all by themselves. Either of you could have simply had one good game and one less good game, or just made a suboptimal move here or there. Many more games would be required to properly test. After all, I believe that's what you asserted was part of the work associated with your patent.

In any case, I don't see any reason to consider the two games to be in competition. You are actively marketing yours for at least the duration of your patent, and Embassy is just out there if people want to try it, so they clearly aren't competing in any meaningful way.

Just like I said in an above post, I have no illusions about changing your opinion. I was just stating my own, and will reiterate my statement that maybe the name you chose will indeed work great in terms of marketing. I wasn't trying to tell you to change anything, but rather explaining why I don't use the name. Nothing personal whatsoever.

All you have done is post on this one topic. I think there are no more points to make regarding this. How about you give it a rest and move on to something else?

Wow. I just responded to posts of others. It's not like there are dozens of active threads to chime in on. But ok, message sent. Gag tied. But for the record, I started two other threads, so your statement is not accurate.

I'll finish off this topic since I theoretically started it on the other board.

As it stands Ed Trice will not have his program accessible to the public as Open Source. While he is in violation of the licensing agreement, the only person who could press him on this issue is Dr. Hyatt. Currently there is no precedent for a third party to claim rights under an Open Source license. Since Dr. Hyatt will not pursue any action, the source for Vortex will remain closed. This is Dr. Hyatt's right, but I wish that he had reconsidered.

I will note that Dr. Hyatt was given the impression that I wanted the source code to Vortex in order to enter a modified version into Ed's computer tournament. Ed Trice, erroneously, thought I intended to profit from his program by beating him with his own creation in a tournament. I'm not sure why Ed thought this since I've never said anything of the kind, nor am I a programmer of any worth (so making Vortex better would be well beyond my ability.)

It would, however, open the way for programmers who could make a better Vortex to enter such programs. So while his fears that I would do such a thing are ungrounded, insulting, and border on paranoia it is entirely possible or even probable that someone else would.

Ironically anyone entering such a program into the tournament would have to call it "Crafty", per the license.

To reiterate, Ed Trice is in violation of the original Crafty license because this was the code he started modifying. He was not given a differently licensed version. (The email he shows is irrelevant unless he was given a new version from the creator.) The license clearly states any derivative program is covered by open source and does not mention anything about 8x8 chess being the only licensing restrictions. Dr. Hyatt is reluctant to force Ed Trice to open the source to Vortex, although he has full rights to do so.

If you wish to debate any of these facts, feel free. I'm happy and willing to defend them.

So what happened exactly? Hyatt asked Trice for the source code to Vortex and he declined? I did not hear this. Or did somebody else ask for the source code?

I'd like to hear more about this. And who told you about this? Who is your source?

Basically I asked Trice for the source code because it had been based off of Crafty.

Trice refused.

I wrote to Hyatt and he confirmed that he had not given any copies of Crafty away without the Open Source license.

Trice contacted Hyatt (by phone apparently), and convinced him not to release his code.

Note here when I say 'his code' I mean Hyatt's code, since he actually owns the code used to compile Vortex (because of the license agreement.)

Hyatt has decided not to defend his license in this particular case or to release this fork of his code to the Open Source community.

Of course I refused. It's my source code.

You're leaving out some very important details.

1. Dr. Hyatt didn't know what you were referring to initially, as you were very vague. You said something like: "Have you ever released crafty source code without the OpenSource license?" or something like that. You clearly did not mention my name or Gothic Vortex.
2. After I contacted Dr. Hyatt by phone, HE RECALLED the agreement we had in place, and said your interpreatation of the events is incorrect.
3. You had been in contact with Dr. Hyatt subsequent to this, and you have not disclosed what he said in THAT communication.

In short: You are skirting the issue by committing lies of ommision. Your initial statement, as it is worded, contains only microscopic resemblence to the issue at hand.

Nonsense! I didn't "convince him" of anything! I asked for his perspective on this entire matter. I have also asked him to join this forum and respond to you directly.

After which time, I will require you to post retractions to EVERY discussion board you have disseminated this nonsense.

I specifically named Vortex.

What "interpretation" are you referring to?
A. You used Crafty as the basis of Vortex?
B. Crafty has a standard Open Source License Agreement that you would have had to have accepted in order to modify it?

Yes I have. He said he would not give out the code, that you told him I wanted the code to beat you in your upcoming cash tournament and that he didn't believe (from his conversation with you) that my intent was "reasonable".

By law, it's Hyatt's code.

We will soon have Dr. Hyatt's word on this matter. His account was just approved for posting.

Gothic Vortex was a collaborative effort. The most recent version has an "about box" under the "special" menu that lists the accomplishments of everyone involved. These people are:

Dr. Robert Hyatt
Gil Dodgen
Steve Dodgen
Ed Trice
Eugene Nalimov
Marc Bourzutschky
Andrew Kadatch

Some of these names are obviously the "Who's Who" of the programming world. Is their source code contribution required to be disclosed as well?

Now you are getting into a very gray area, at best. How about Steve Dodgen's "Dead Simple" graphical user interface API? Is that required to be released also?

Crafty is an outstanding high performance program.

But it also comes with a type-in interface.

There is probably 3,000 lines of code where the Vortex interface is interleaved with the Crafty source code, and this g.u.i. was made available with an arrangement with Steve Dodgen. He has NOT given approval for the release of this library.

Andrew Kadatch made an arrangement with Ed Trice regarding using his run-time probable decompression algorithm. Must this code be released? How about Marc's modification to Eugene Nalimov's tablebase generator? Must that 80-square port of the code be released?

So, you see, your claim is far-fetched at best. It is no longer a matter of OpenSource privitization.

If you would want the Gothic Vortex code, in an OpenSource release, you would probably have to pay for the conversion of Vortex back to a type-in interface without the Dodgen Library. You would also need permission from the other authors to bundle THEIR intellectual property into something released under the OpenSource license. They also have the right to refuse.

Just so I know, what is your real name?

Your appeal to complexity doesn't work. At best you show a tangled mess that happens when people don't follow licensing agreements. I can imagine Microsoft saying something similar "Oh, so many people worked on this, we can't just take out that bit of TCP/IP stack we put in..."

But the germane issue here is a simple one. Hyatt, if he wishes to, needs to send written authorization and transference of the code (Vortex) to ... I assume Ed, but you list a lot of people. Quoting from Crafty:

Now Ed has an email which he claims gives him full rights over a modified version. I can't quote it because it's an image he took of an email. Perhaps that was Hyatt's intention, perhaps not. Doesn't really matter because it's not on paper. Legality being "expressed written permission".

Foregoing that you have the issue that Ed did use Crafty as his starting point, thus entering into this agreement. Which would mean:

1. Copies of the source must contain the original copyright notice intact.

Vortex's code should have this notice in it.

2. Any changes made to this software must also be made public to comply with the original intent of this software distribution project.

Changes are intended to be public.

3. These restrictions apply whether the distribution is being done for free or as part or all of a commercial product.

You can sell this program, but you are still restricted by it's license.

4. The author retains sole ownership and copyright on this program...

Hyatt still owns the copyright and code.

Blah blah blah...

The point is simple.

Hyatt needs to have given someone a written document saying they could have "rights", either all rights or some rights, to change this software without those changes being made public. If he hasn't then Hyatt still has all these rights and someone(s) may unwittingly be in violation of his rights.

That being said, Hyatt can turn around and say "it was never my intention to force my copyright of Crafty on anyone not using the code for (FIDE) Chess." Great! So if I make a spreadsheet out of it I don't have to worry about the license. Or if I make a version that plays Dark Chess, Sun Tzu Chess, Suicide, CrazyHouse, Fischer Random Chess... basically any variant.

Perhaps that's what Hyatt wishes. And he can change his copyright right now and from that point on anyone can use it for anything other than (FIDE) Chess.

BUT...

if Trice or anyone else started with this code and never got written permission it's clear that Hyatt still has all rights to that codebase.

Modules (like the graphics you are talking about) are more complicated but basically aren't covered. Bored? Read up on it. Wikipedia has a good article.

I'm one of the T.D.s for the Gothic Chess Federation currently living in California. From 6 PM pacific time to 9 PM pacific time I man the admin account 3 days per week. There is 24 hour coverage. You'll most likely get different responses from different people.

I'm not involved in any aspect of licensing. When a Gothic Chess tournament is being run at my college, I'm one of the 4 people that usually runs it. I'm a volunteer admin whose term expires at the end of this year.

Admins are rotated out every 3 months, and all are volunteers.

I'm staying out of your "dispute" and I look forward to responses from Ed and Dr. Hyatt. Strange that you're the only one making noise about it, and you have nothing to do with the Crafty project. I have one email from Ed saying that you're the author of some eval. system where an archbishop is equated to a queen, and that's about all he says he knows about you.

If your purpose is to "troll", you won't get far here. The admins allow a fair amount of freedom in posts here, but making claims of illegal sotware licensing about our company founder could have severe personal consequences for you. All of your posts are being logged with your i.p. address having been recorded and screen snapshots of all of your text, as well as soft copy, just in case you try to delete posts or change them later.

I think you are digging your own grave, but I won't stop you from shovelling.

Ed Trice has always said that he used the Crafty code to make Gothic Voretx with Dr. Hyatt's persmission!

He has never hide this fact!

So why, after all this time that Gothic Vortex has been created are you making a big deal over this?

If Dr. Hyatt doesn't mind...why should you!!! And who are you anyway...probably someone who is just jealous that Gothic Vortex is a GREAT program!

Get a life TROLL!

Everyone should be aware I'm not the administrator from some of the earlier posts. I'd like to state that firstoff this topic isn't named properly. There is no debate regarding Gothic Vortex using the Crafy code. This is a fact.

Item #2 on the list - Let's everyone be civil.

Neoliminal has questions/concerns let's hear them. This is the place for it. ChessCarpenter feels strongly about this matter, but let's stick to the facts.

My weigh in on the matter - It does seem strange someone is asking for the source code to the program currently destroying other programs in the ongoing World Championship. I can't imagine any situation where that would be turned over, barring a court order.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, I think it's safe to say neoliminal will not be getting the Vortex source code, so any further discussion by anyone other than Ed Trice and Dr. Hyatt is just pouring gasoline on your little campfire here.

Still, Dr. Hyatt hasn't responded yet, and I think he deserves an ample voice in this discussion.

EVERYONE ELSE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POSTING UNTIL DR. HYATT HAS REPLIED.

Then feel free to debate all you want.

Thank you.

It might be helpful if "Chief Admin" posted as themselves if they are giving an opinion about the debate topic and refrain from using the authority of being an administrator as leverage in making a point of discussion.

:-) This would help me get around the seemingly multiple personalities of the login.

I do very much appreciate Chief Admin intervention in keeping this discussion civil.

Thanks,
John

What has happened is nothing. I gave Ed specific permission to use parts of Crafty to create "Gothic Chess" and told him that since the game was so different from normal chess, he would not have to give copies of the source code to others, although he always agreed to give it to me if I should choose to ask.

There is no issue here, and I don't see why this keeps coming up, other than as an attempt to create some sort of discord that is unnecessary...