Bill Rogers wrote:Hello Chris
If Rolf is wrong and you claim that there is another program that is stronger than Rybka then why don't you name it instead of just blowing hot air and demeaning a fellow member.
Although the quote is not exactly the right fit. Put your money where you mouth is" in a round about way fits.
Bill
Bill,
I can tell you with 100% accuracy that there is something out there stronger than Rybka.
The reason for not naming it is simple. If the cloners don't know about it yet, then the computer chess scene is better off with them not knowing about it for as long as humanly possible.
In my own testing, it beat Rybka 3, +46 =11 -13.
Do you really want to see 100 Rybka clones out there? Or people showing up out of the blue with 3000+ rated programs and trying to enter them into the CCT or ACCA? Or the WCCC IPCCC Leiden?
It would kill this sport in a heart beat. Those that do know about it are keeping in close to their chests and are purely using good judgement for the betterment of our hobby.
Peter
I can only think of one great engine capable of that....Fruit
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Graham Banks wrote:I am all for consistency. Why do we allow equally guilty or worse guilty cloners to remain as members of CCC, knowing full well what they've done? Isn't that sort of condoning their actions?
Who is worse than Norm? He tried to make a clone commercial, and then after getting caught clones again. Then he put up a bunch of nonsense on his website. I can't think of anybody who is equally or more guilty.
Schmidt was banned for repeated violation of the CCC Charter
once in a prior mod term and now in this mod term
posting links to his engines that violated the GPL license
not once ..but twice
he could clone all he wants to and if he does not come here and provide links to his cloned engines which violate the GPL licences .. he would not be banned
if any other cloners do that they too will be banned
i am certain Graham understood that at the time of the banning as most members did
Regards
Steve
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:I can only think of one great engine capable of that....Fruit
Dr.D
A Fruit dervative would be legal and public. People would not keep it a secret. They would just fight to get the sources revealed in case they were withheld in violation of the GPL.
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:I can only think of one great engine capable of that....Fruit
Dr.D
A Fruit dervative would be legal and public. People would not keep it a secret. They would just fight to get the sources revealed in case they were withheld in violation of the GPL.
Unless you didn't notice,Fruit has been kept in private status for a loooong time now....so the GPL is not helping in any way here
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
hgm wrote:You are correct. They have a private fork.
My point....thanks....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
hgm wrote:You are correct. They have a private fork.
Fabien Letouzey as the original Fruit author can do that and also release it if they wished without the normal GPL conditions, Ryan Benitez got that right too, because the right for working on the code was transferred to him by Fabien. They would not have to make their new work GPL, everybody else does under the GPL end users agreement. The rights of Fruit 2.1 have been transferred to the Free Software Foundation as Ryan posted here but my understanding was Fabien or Ryan still would have the right to make new work based on his older code not fall under the GPL? This seems a bit unclear now that they are not actually the "owners" of the code anymore?
Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
hgm wrote:You are correct. They have a private fork.
My point....thanks....
Dr.D
"Tae help the folk in medical school, word is passed around
A body nae mair than ten days auld will bring in fourteen pound.
It's a terrible thing, but truth tae say ---in this age o' greed
A man's worth little when he's alive, but plenty when he's deid."
"An' it's doon the close an' up the stair
A but-an'-ben wi' Burke and Hare
Burke's the butcher, Hare's the thief
And Deeb is the man that buys the beef."
