Changes

=<span id="TheInterpretationOfRules"></span>The Interpretation of Rules=

[[Jaap van den Herik]] on the [[Lion]] case in ''The Interpretation of Rules'', [[ICGA Journal]], June 2006 <ref>[[Jaap van den Herik]] ('''2006'''). ''The Interpretation of Rules''. Editorial, [[ICGA Journal#29_2|ICGA Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2]], [http://ilk.uvt.nl/icga/journal/pdf/toc29-2.pdf pdf]</ref>:

The [[Lion|LION++ 1.5]] team made use of [[Fabien Letouzey|Fabien Letouzey’s]] program [[Fruit|FRUIT]]. FRUIT is composed from open-source software and it unexpectedly finished in a second place in the [[WCCC 2005|13th WCCC]] in Reykjavik, Iceland, last year. The LION++ 1.5 team members are honest people, they had checked our ruling with their legal advisors. It deals with rule 2 (see Vol. 29, No.1, p. 48) that states: “Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their application details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.”

In the tournament report you will find that one of the participants made a protest against LION++ 1.5. After inspection by [[Yngvi Björnsson]] and later (independently) by [[Jonathan Schaeffer]] it was clear that the code was similar to Letouzey’s. However, the remarkable thing was that the LION++ 1.5 team members did not deny this fact, but pointed: (a) to the credit for Letouzey as mentioned in their files, and (b) to all the newly developed routines which surrounded the ideas by Letouzey. Their interpretation of rule 2 diverged in three aspects from my interpretation. The aspects are: ('''1''') original work, ('''2''') application details, and ('''3''') close derivatives. I discuss the three points briefly below.

('''Ad 1''') “original work of the entering developers”. If they had included Fabien Letouzey (with his permission) in the list of authors, there would have been no concerns. Since they had not done so, the discussion was on “original work”. Clearly, the main part of the program LION++ 1.5 was not their original work. However, rule 2 had five more lines, which the team perceived as an explanation of the notion “original” (see ad 2 and ad 3).