Re:how to determine the perfect game of chess
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't even necessarily have to be disadvantageous... if all of the first moves provided no advantage, then it could be the case that chess could be a win for black given perfect playing.
Here's an example of a twisted chess game such that all first moves are disadvantageous... The board is 5 squares wide and 1 square high:
WK WQ BQ BQ BK
Where WK is a white king and BQ is a black queen. Granted, normal chess doesn't seem to be like this, and it might be possible to prove that it's not. So I was wondering if such a proof exists.
Relative to what? Well, if you assume that white and black both can forsee all moves and will choose the best possible move... then a disadvantageous move would be a move that would result in a loss, where maybe abstaining from a move would result in not a loss. --
Re:how to determine the perfect game of chess
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
The wise response to this is: "Then the best move is to refuse to play the game.":)
So I guess a perfect player could always draw, but not strictly in the context of a zero sum two player game. --
Re:how to determine the perfect game of chess
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
If every possible move is disadvantageous, then the game is at fault, not the player, so yes, it would be a perfect move. --
Re:how to determine the perfect game of chess
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
And, no, it's not possible for black to win a perfect game (both sides play perfect, that is). White goes frst, therefore has an advantage, the best black can hope for is stalemate.
Well, within the context of perfect knowledge zero sum games, it's possible for the 2nd player to always win given a perfect strategy... the game may be such that all first moves either give no strategic advantage, or they're actually disadvantageous.
I believe the Game of Nim is one such game?
So my question was... is it possible for chess to be such a game? --
Re:Chess has full information
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
Hrm. I could be wrong, but... this page, titled "Zero-Sum Two Person Games of Perfect Information" starts off by saying "The almost perfect example of this type of games is chess." --
Re:how to determine the perfect game of chess
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
Screw the monkeys, but the concept is pretty good. Randomly playing chess moves, when a computer sees that a certain move is good, take a note of it.
At each board position, there are probably more possible random moves than there are legal moves, and it's probably easier to generate a list of legal moves than it is to generate a random list of moves and then check each for legality.
Or, more likely, set a network of computers to all play against each other. Use some AI to have them "learn", and realise what they did wrong in the past, and what they should do better in the future.
That's a greedy algorithm though. It's possible that you'll miss an important subtree doing that. Don't you have to try every possible way of doing it?
Given enough time, either all games should end in stalemate, or white would win all games.
Is it theoretically possible that black to win them all as well? For every move that white could pick, there exists a black move, such that if black plays intelligently from there on out, black will win? (or \forall white_1 \exists black_1 \forall white_2 \exists black_2 black-will-win, or...) --
Re:how to determine the perfect game of chess
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't it be easier just to calculate it?
If Shakespeare's works are n characters long in total, then it would take 38^n tries to get it right (/[A-Z0-9. ]{n)/ ).
If it takes t seconds on average to type out n characters, then it will take t * 38^n seconds (or, slightly past the end of the universe) to type out Shakespeare's works.
Given m monkeys, that's t * 38^n / m seconds. If m == infinity, then the entire works will be typed out instantaneously.
These copies are legal, bitwise-perfect or not, for my own use (I believe we all agree on this point, RIAA included).
That's not how I interpret the law currently. The argument used in the RIAA vs. Rio case was that the Rio was a device for copying songs (eg. from the computer to the Rio, or from CD to the Rio). I'm not sure what the verdict was (I think it was either that Rio won, because it's a playback device, not a recording one, or they settled out of court), but I beleive the law regarding copying still stands.
See my other posts here and here that back up my argument more. It's my humble (non-lawyer) opinion that RIAA's suit against MP3.com rests on the fact that MP3.com copied their physical CDs to the computer and stored them in MP3 format.
I implore them to ask/subpeona Rob Malda/Slashdot/Andover/whoever the responsible party is for my email address and contact me. I will interpret any failure to do this as implied permission to continue.
I'm sure you're joking? As you're probably aware, there are a multitude of sites on the 'net that serve illegal MP3s and have been doing so for several months, without being shut down by the RIAA. "Getting away with it" doesn't necesarily imply permission by RIAA or legallity. --
Hrm. IANAL, but it seems that one of the arguments in the RIAA vs. Rio cases (it's not a recording device, it's a playback device) might be relavent here. I can't manage to figure out what the outcome of those cases were though. (see here?). --
Argh. Or did they settle out of court because Rio promised to implement SDMI? I can't find a clear history of the suit and any counter-suits anywhere... --
Also, I believe that the judge ruled that the Rio was not a recording device per se, but that it was a device for that makes a temporary copy in order to play the music (such as digital speakers might) (see here).
I certainly personally agree that an individual should be allowed to copy a CD for one's personal use. I was just stating what the current legal climate is.
Most people seem to be concentrating on the distribution issue, which doesn't seem to be much of an issue in this case. Actually, I was trying to make more of a point that people should put more thought into becoming active against the RIAA on this subject. I wasn't too concerned about it before, but now that they're actually trying to use it as an offense, I'm more concerned that it will set a precident, and it'll make it easier for the govmnt to enforce the laws against us little people. --
The point isn't about whatever political motivations the ASCAP had when licensing MP3.com, it's that the RIAA's suit has nothing to do with distribution (read some of my other posts), and everything to do with the fact that no one is allowed to rip tracks from CDs to MP3s, including MP3.com. The RIAA (and some laws) consider this to be illegal copying. The bitrate doesn't matter, ripping from CDs to tapes is no different in their opinion (other than how much money they can get from defendants).
Search on "ephemeral recordings"... only certain (specially licensed) people are allowed to make copies, even for personal use (this includes CD to MP3). --
A ZDNet article (here) mentions all the laws associated with webcasting MP3's via shoutcast or somesuch.
One of the issues is "ephemeral recordings", which is a temporary recording used to make transmission easier (eg. ripping from CD to MP3). It's generally not allowed, but it is allowed under some restrictions that I haven't figured out yet.
Exemption for Ephemeral Recordings. For example, the phonorecord of a musical work created for use as a master server copy may be entitled to exemption from licensing as an "ephemeral recording" under 17 U.S.C. 112(a). Under this provision, an entity entitled to transmit to the public a performance of the musical work (e.g., under authorization from one of the performing rights societies, as discussed below), may make one phonorecord of a particular "transmission program" embodying the performance if the phonorecord (a) is not distributed or further reproduced, (b) is used solely for the Web broadcaster's transmissions or archival or security purposes, and (c) is destroyed within six months, unless preserved solely for archival purposes. (The Copyright Act defines "transmission program" as "a body of material that, as an aggregate, has been produced for the sole purpose of transmission to the public in sequence and as a unit." ) (quoted from here)
In other words, the only people who are allowed to rip CDs are those who have special license and are going to publicly webcast it. And even then, they can't keep the copy around afterwards.
In other words, you're not allowed to rip CDs at home? I'm not sure, I can't make sense of the legal babble. Slashdot really needs to hire a lawyer or two to help with the discussions. --
Re:Not that I am particularly happy about this, bu
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 3
They were distributing copyrighted material without a license.
Following last week's announcement by ASCAP of its historic and unique strategic relationship with MP3.com., the reaction from ASCAP members has been uniformly positive, with many expressions of support. Among the most prominent of ASCAP members to issue statements praising the agreement are pop/rock superstar Alanis Morissette and Desmond Child, the writer and producer behind a long string of pop, rock and Latin hits.
The ASCAP is "a membership association of over 80,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers. ASCAP's function is to protect the rights of its members by licensing and paying royalties for the public performances of their copyrighted works.".
So MP3.com was definitely allowed to "publicly perform" the MP3's. I don't know how close that is to digitally reproducing them, but it at least allows radio stations to broadcast the songs.
If you check the RIAA's filing on the lawsuit, you'll see that they are suing MP3.com for copying the data from the CD to MP3.com's computers, not for actually distributing the data. It seems like quite a stretch to me. --
Re:Ask yourself this: Where did the MP3 come from?
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
There are references here and here. A quote from the second one:
Following last week's announcement by ASCAP of its historic and unique strategic relationship with MP3.com., the reaction from ASCAP members has been uniformly positive, with many expressions of support. Among the most prominent of ASCAP members to issue statements praising the agreement are pop/rock superstar Alanis Morissette and Desmond Child, the writer and producer behind a long string of pop, rock and Latin hits.
--
Re:Ask yourself this: Where did the MP3 come from?
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 4
I've read in several news peices that the RIAA is suing MP3.com for building the database.
In order to create and offer this service, defendant copied every track from 45,000 commercial audio CDs onto its computer services. All or virtually all of these audio CDs are marked as copyrighted and contain explicit notices prohibiting unauthorized copying.... Included among these infringing reproductions are copies of thousands of copyrighted sound recordings owned by plaintiffs, none of whom has authorized defendant to make any such reproductions.
Also, paragraph 34:
Defendant has willfully and with full knowledge of plaintiffs' copyrights made infringing reproductions of thousands of plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings for the purpose of operating its commercial My.MP3 interactive service.
In fact, if you look through the actual allegation of copyright infringment (the 1st and only count alleged against mp3.com, paragraphs 31-36), the only copying really mentioned is copying from the physical CD to MP3.com's computers.
They also allege that MP3.com is distributing these "infringing reproductions", but that's not in the actual count itself.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it seems that this could be a huge precedent that could prevent home users from making MP3 copies from CDs that they legally own. --
Judge Jed Rakoff of U.S. District Court for the Sourthern District of New York issued a terse order holding MP3.com "liable for copyright infringement."
Does anyone know if/where the full text of the "terse order" is available online? As fun as it is to speculate wildly about the facts, I'd like to see what exactly influenced the judge to make this decision.
The only thing I was able to find was the website for the court mentioned above. (click here) But I couldn't find anything more. It's too bad I don't live in New York or I'd get a copy of the thing and type it up myself... --
Re:Before you condemn, RTFB
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 2
Somebody mark this guy's post up, please.
In addition to his quotes from the second article, I'd like to add:
The law approved by both houses, however, contains mostly cosmetic changes while leaving all the dangerous stuff untouched
The article goes on to detail the dangerous stuff left in Maryland's UCITA... --
Yes, the Record Companies are money grabbing bastards, and yes, they should be made to stop ripping us off. That doesn't alter the above statement though.
Damn straight. There are two issues here:
Is this particular lisence legal within the constraints of the first amendment or other laws, and
Should the major music and movie companies be dragged outside and beaten for using monopolistic practices?
If mega-corporations abuse their power to gain a more monopolistic position, and then go on to use a particular law in their favor... that doesn't necessariy imply that the law is faulty.
I just wish the two arguments would be separated. Yes, RIAA and MPAA seem to be using their clout to raise barriers to entry along with other monopolistic practices. And yes, the DMCA seems wrong in places, but they are separate issues. Even if MP3's and the DMCA didn't exist, the RIAA should be punished. And if the RIAA didn't exist, then the issue of MP3 pirating and DMCA might be less confusing of an issue to mull over, but it'd still be an important one. --
The information he could contribute to society falls into two groups: 1) technical details related to security, and 2) moral/ethical.
I could see where people might possibly ignore any statements of his that are moral/ethical in nature, but it seems like he has some knowledge to contribute about security. Even if the white hat academians already know everything he does, it might do others well to be shocked by finding out what sorts of social engineering are feasible.
Novel crimes are of value to society. They allow the society to be aware of potential future problems and to try to prevent them in the future. --
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an example of a twisted chess game such that all first moves are disadvantageous... The board is 5 squares wide and 1 square high:
- WK WQ BQ BQ BK
Where WK is a white king and BQ is a black queen. Granted, normal chess doesn't seem to be like this, and it might be possible to prove that it's not. So I was wondering if such a proof exists.Relative to what? Well, if you assume that white and black both can forsee all moves and will choose the best possible move... then a disadvantageous move would be a move that would result in a loss, where maybe abstaining from a move would result in not a loss.
--
So I guess a perfect player could always draw, but not strictly in the context of a zero sum two player game.
--
If every possible move is disadvantageous, then the game is at fault, not the player, so yes, it would be a perfect move.
--
Well, within the context of perfect knowledge zero sum games, it's possible for the 2nd player to always win given a perfect strategy... the game may be such that all first moves either give no strategic advantage, or they're actually disadvantageous.
I believe the Game of Nim is one such game?
So my question was... is it possible for chess to be such a game?
--
Hrm. I could be wrong, but... this page, titled "Zero-Sum Two Person Games of Perfect Information" starts off by saying "The almost perfect example of this type of games is chess."
--
At each board position, there are probably more possible random moves than there are legal moves, and it's probably easier to generate a list of legal moves than it is to generate a random list of moves and then check each for legality.
Or, more likely, set a network of computers to all play against each other. Use some AI to have them "learn", and realise what they did wrong in the past, and what they should do better in the future.
That's a greedy algorithm though. It's possible that you'll miss an important subtree doing that. Don't you have to try every possible way of doing it?
Given enough time, either all games should end in stalemate, or white would win all games.
Is it theoretically possible that black to win them all as well? For every move that white could pick, there exists a black move, such that if black plays intelligently from there on out, black will win? (or \forall white_1 \exists black_1 \forall white_2 \exists black_2 black-will-win, or...)
--
If Shakespeare's works are n characters long in total, then it would take 38^n tries to get it right ( /[A-Z0-9. ]{n)/ ).
If it takes t seconds on average to type out n characters, then it will take t * 38^n seconds (or, slightly past the end of the universe) to type out Shakespeare's works.
Given m monkeys, that's t * 38^n / m seconds. If m == infinity, then the entire works will be typed out instantaneously.
Does anybody have a good bulk rate on monkeys?
--
Would putting it in the /etc/hosts file work? That doesn't seem to be working for me. Where's my brain fart?
--
Mine doesn't work either. Could you post an IP, please?
--
Therefore, O'Reilly should release their books on the 'net for free?
--
- These copies are legal, bitwise-perfect or not, for my own use (I believe we all agree on this point, RIAA included).
That's not how I interpret the law currently. The argument used in the RIAA vs. Rio case was that the Rio was a device for copying songs (eg. from the computer to the Rio, or from CD to the Rio). I'm not sure what the verdict was (I think it was either that Rio won, because it's a playback device, not a recording one, or they settled out of court), but I beleive the law regarding copying still stands.See my other posts here and here that back up my argument more. It's my humble (non-lawyer) opinion that RIAA's suit against MP3.com rests on the fact that MP3.com copied their physical CDs to the computer and stored them in MP3 format.
I'm sure you're joking? As you're probably aware, there are a multitude of sites on the 'net that serve illegal MP3s and have been doing so for several months, without being shut down by the RIAA. "Getting away with it" doesn't necesarily imply permission by RIAA or legallity.
--
Hrm. IANAL, but it seems that one of the arguments in the RIAA vs. Rio cases (it's not a recording device, it's a playback device) might be relavent here. I can't manage to figure out what the outcome of those cases were though. (see here?).
--
Argh. Or did they settle out of court because Rio promised to implement SDMI? I can't find a clear history of the suit and any counter-suits anywhere...
--
Also, I believe that the judge ruled that the Rio was not a recording device per se, but that it was a device for that makes a temporary copy in order to play the music (such as digital speakers might) (see here).
So the original laws stayed intact, I guess.
--
Most people seem to be concentrating on the distribution issue, which doesn't seem to be much of an issue in this case. Actually, I was trying to make more of a point that people should put more thought into becoming active against the RIAA on this subject. I wasn't too concerned about it before, but now that they're actually trying to use it as an offense, I'm more concerned that it will set a precident, and it'll make it easier for the govmnt to enforce the laws against us little people.
--
Search on "ephemeral recordings"... only certain (specially licensed) people are allowed to make copies, even for personal use (this includes CD to MP3).
--
A ZDNet article (here) mentions all the laws associated with webcasting MP3's via shoutcast or somesuch.
One of the issues is "ephemeral recordings", which is a temporary recording used to make transmission easier (eg. ripping from CD to MP3). It's generally not allowed, but it is allowed under some restrictions that I haven't figured out yet.
- Exemption for Ephemeral Recordings. For example, the phonorecord of a musical work created for use as a master server copy may be entitled to exemption from licensing as an "ephemeral recording" under 17 U.S.C. 112(a). Under this provision, an entity entitled to transmit to the public a performance of the musical work (e.g., under authorization from one of the performing rights societies, as discussed below), may make one phonorecord of a particular "transmission program" embodying the performance if the phonorecord (a) is not distributed or further reproduced, (b) is used solely for the Web broadcaster's transmissions or archival or security purposes, and (c) is destroyed within six months, unless preserved solely for archival purposes. (The Copyright Act defines "transmission program" as "a body of material that, as an aggregate, has been produced for the sole purpose of transmission to the public in sequence and as a unit." ) (quoted from here)
In other words, the only people who are allowed to rip CDs are those who have special license and are going to publicly webcast it. And even then, they can't keep the copy around afterwards.In other words, you're not allowed to rip CDs at home? I'm not sure, I can't make sense of the legal babble. Slashdot really needs to hire a lawyer or two to help with the discussions.
--
MP3.com is lisenced with the ASCAP (see here).
- Following last week's announcement by ASCAP of its historic and unique strategic relationship with MP3.com., the reaction from ASCAP members has been uniformly positive, with many expressions of support. Among the most prominent of ASCAP members to issue statements praising the agreement are pop/rock superstar Alanis Morissette and Desmond Child, the writer and producer behind a long string of pop, rock and Latin hits.
The ASCAP is "a membership association of over 80,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers. ASCAP's function is to protect the rights of its members by licensing and paying royalties for the public performances of their copyrighted works.".So MP3.com was definitely allowed to "publicly perform" the MP3's. I don't know how close that is to digitally reproducing them, but it at least allows radio stations to broadcast the songs.
If you check the RIAA's filing on the lawsuit, you'll see that they are suing MP3.com for copying the data from the CD to MP3.com's computers, not for actually distributing the data. It seems like quite a stretch to me.
--
--
See RIAA's filed complaint here. Paragraph 26:
- In order to create and offer this service, defendant copied every track from 45,000 commercial audio CDs onto its computer services. All or virtually all of these audio CDs are marked as copyrighted and contain explicit notices prohibiting unauthorized copying.
... Included among these infringing reproductions are copies of thousands of copyrighted sound recordings owned by plaintiffs, none of whom has authorized defendant to make any such reproductions.
Also, paragraph 34:- Defendant has willfully and with full knowledge of plaintiffs' copyrights made infringing reproductions of thousands of plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings for the purpose of operating its commercial My.MP3 interactive service.
In fact, if you look through the actual allegation of copyright infringment (the 1st and only count alleged against mp3.com, paragraphs 31-36), the only copying really mentioned is copying from the physical CD to MP3.com's computers.They also allege that MP3.com is distributing these "infringing reproductions", but that's not in the actual count itself.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it seems that this could be a huge precedent that could prevent home users from making MP3 copies from CDs that they legally own.
--
- Judge Jed Rakoff of U.S. District Court for the Sourthern District of New York issued a terse order holding MP3.com "liable for copyright infringement."
Does anyone know if/where the full text of the "terse order" is available online? As fun as it is to speculate wildly about the facts, I'd like to see what exactly influenced the judge to make this decision.The only thing I was able to find was the website for the court mentioned above. (click here) But I couldn't find anything more. It's too bad I don't live in New York or I'd get a copy of the thing and type it up myself...
--
In addition to his quotes from the second article, I'd like to add:
- The law approved by both houses, however, contains mostly cosmetic changes while leaving all the dangerous stuff untouched
The article goes on to detail the dangerous stuff left in Maryland's UCITA...--
Damn straight. There are two issues here:
- Is this particular lisence legal within the constraints of the first amendment or other laws, and
- Should the major music and movie companies be dragged outside and beaten for using monopolistic practices?
If mega-corporations abuse their power to gain a more monopolistic position, and then go on to use a particular law in their favor... that doesn't necessariy imply that the law is faulty.I just wish the two arguments would be separated. Yes, RIAA and MPAA seem to be using their clout to raise barriers to entry along with other monopolistic practices. And yes, the DMCA seems wrong in places, but they are separate issues. Even if MP3's and the DMCA didn't exist, the RIAA should be punished. And if the RIAA didn't exist, then the issue of MP3 pirating and DMCA might be less confusing of an issue to mull over, but it'd still be an important one.
--
I could see where people might possibly ignore any statements of his that are moral/ethical in nature, but it seems like he has some knowledge to contribute about security. Even if the white hat academians already know everything he does, it might do others well to be shocked by finding out what sorts of social engineering are feasible.
Novel crimes are of value to society. They allow the society to be aware of potential future problems and to try to prevent them in the future.
--
There are many other items there that CoS seems to use to make money from... why don't they go after those too?
--