Milos wrote:
Reverse engineering and making a new program that is equally strong or stronger is much harder than writing an original 3000 elo program.
RE a program is very hard but certainly not as hard as writing a 3000 elo program from scratch. I haven't done any of the above, just some minor RE not regarding a chess engine.
So you didn't do any of these but you know which one is certainly harder???
What a load of crap and just because you once used IDA to crack some simple protection or whatever...
How many ppl on Earth are in the same time capable of writing an original 3000 program and also reverse engineering a 3000 elo program and making the one of the same strength or stronger that is working? I pretty sure the number is less than 5. It's also pretty certain that only 2 ppl have done that so far in the history of computer chess... And uncountable number of them have tried it...
Milos wrote:
So you didn't do any of these but you know which one is certainly harder???
What a load of crap and just because you once used IDA to crack some simple protection or whatever...
How could YOU possibly know?
Milos wrote:
How many ppl on Earth are in the same time capable of writing an original 3000 program and also reverse engineering a 3000 elo program and making the one of the same strength or stronger that is working? I pretty sure the number is less than 5. It's also pretty certain that only 2 ppl have done that so far in the history of computer chess... And uncountable number of them have tried it...
Are you one of them? I really doubt. There is only one I know of who can do both. Has he told you which is harder perhaps? I doubt so as well. You are fantasizing and presenting ridiculous second-hand "facts".
fern wrote:No doubt Junior is a great engine, I bought the last one time ago and I happy with it, but surely I would like it in a tourn against the engines that all know are the strongest, cloned or not.
I have not organized a tourn, but maybe someone did...or will. I would like to know about THOSE results.
Fern
+1
Agreed..
The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available...
this year = Houdini
and towards that goal, the tournament should be 'open' format, not a hand-picked selection of 'approved' programs...
apparently the organizers can 'divine' which programs are 'clean' and which are not?
(like they knew the last 5 years w/ Rybka?)
the fact that Houdini is excluded is a travesty...
all due to the CCC establishment erroneously, unfairly, and without any evidence, labeling and blacklisting Ippolit engines as 'the clones'...
what a farce this has become.
referring to what M. Hull posted:
the ippolit source code is now known 'clean', thus competing against it is not akin to competing against a 'doped' athlete...they analogy is ridiculous.
The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available... this year = Houdini
That's a pure crock. What if someone just takes commercial rybka, hex-edits the name, and enters that? That's basically Houdart's modus operandi with Houdini, just replace Rybka 4.1 with Robolito...
Sounds like a wonderful tournament you would want... Nothing but clones.
Heya Bob, although I agree with you in principle 100%, in another way I must disagree. Please let me explain. One problem that does occur with the excluding of Rybka and it's children is the relative quality of the "CHESS" being played. OF course all the engines that did play are amazingly strong and played great chess, but I did say that the quality is relative. Most would agree that had Rybka or Houdini played the outcome would have been different, but more interesting to chess would the method in which those engines would have won. It is that ability to climb to the next level of chess that interests some of us.
One can observe that 2800 elo play looks good until a 2900 player comes along. It seems to me some people on this forum have become so caught up on the "who cloned who?" bullshit they have forgotten the "CHESS" aspect. There are still some people who enjoy these tournaments for the actual chess being played. Yes, cloning is wrong! and unacceptable, but why does Rybka and it's ever evolving family have to be so much stronger than the rest, it begs the question. I think everyone know what that is.
Many chess engines are 1 person products.
It's very logical that if you steal together the best stuff of single persons, and test what some other dude invented, that it is possible to create a stronger beancounter (note that all those clones are still beancounters just checking mainlines and it's questionable you want an engine like that as it's not much of a fun - but that's another subject). This perfectly makes sense. Yet that gives 0 excuses that you legally can steal from others in the first place: "because you can engineer something better when stealing from the others".
This stealing together is what psychopaths and thieves do.
Don wrote:According to Ed Shroeder, I would be a hypocrite if I implemented MP on Komodo because it's not my original idea, it would be plagiarism.
Correction, according to the ICGA.
There is absolutely no such opinion within the ICGA. Your statement is false, and you KNOW it is false. The ICGA journal proves that clearly.
Bob,
Do you feel guilty because you adapted a form of LMR after Fruit made it popular and all the other program started using it? And yet you still had the audacity to convict Vas for copying large sections of code! Shame on you.
Actually i invented reductions back in 1998 and entire 1999 Diep used reductions. LMR and History pruning is a subset of what i experimented with back then. Using history moves for reductions or even as a selective move mechanism was used in the 90s massively also by Said Koudache in his 10x10 international checkers program.
Many authors independant from each other invented reductions and some used it with more succes for their engine than others. Back then in 90s the nps of diep wasn't high enough to really profit from what i invented. Also i could prove on paper that the optimum to reduce was 1 ply; experiments reducing more i could prove on paper to have a more complicated break even point.
Another few selective algorithms i invented back then which i intend to retry now, as with the higher nps it is possible it might work.
The way how you wrote down your response to Bob here i find pretty disgusting.
Don wrote:
In fact I believe that one of either Rybka, Fruit or Houdini should be allowed to compete to represent the "Fruit" name.
Don-
Please stop this incessant (2 years now?) propaganda and devious campaign to discredit Ippolit...
where is the evidence that Houdini, or any of the Ippolit engines contain Fruit?
there isn't any!
Until such is presented, your allegations are completely untrue, disingenuous, and hurtful...
If you don't have it, then what you are doing is as bad (or worse, IMO) than those you refer to as 'the cloners'...
and your behavior is simply reprehensible.
mar wrote:Are you one of them? I really doubt. There is only one I know of who can do both. Has he told you which is harder perhaps? I doubt so as well. You are fantasizing and presenting ridiculous second-hand "facts".
You certainly are a reference to claim something .
You can't make a 3000 elo engine, you can't dissasemble one (all by your own admittance), but you know Don could just if he wanted to and therefore you must do a little apple polishing for him. Hopefully that makes you feel more important...
Milos wrote:
You certainly are a reference to claim something .
You can't make a 3000 elo engine, you can't dissasemble one (all by your own admittance), but you know Don could just if he wanted to and therefore you must do a little apple polishing for him. Hopefully that makes you feel more important...
What are you talking about? I certainly don't know Don and I don't care. Wasn't talking about him in the first place. I was simply reacting to what you wrote.
I can't make 3000 elo but I can make 2600. Good enough? I understand assembly well (unlike you obviously). I haven't said that I can't dissassemble a chess engine, you are shifting facts. I could possibly do it.
Will you pay me for that? You know it's a lot of work and don't do RE for living. Just give me a year.
How many chess engines have you written? How many programs in assembler? You know sometimes pure theory is not enough .
Actually i invented reductions back in 1998 and entire 1999 Diep used reductions. LMR and History pruning is a subset of what i experimented with back then. Using history moves for reductions or even as a selective move mechanism was used in the 90s massively also by Said Koudache in his 10x10 international checkers program.
Many authors independant from each other invented reductions and some used it with more succes for their engine than others. Back then in 90s the nps of diep wasn't high enough to really profit from what i invented.
Vincent
LMR helps at all time control including 1 second per move with single cpu hardware that is not the fastest single cpu hardware.
It means that
one million nodes per move are clearly enough to make LMR productive.
I am sure that Diep at 3 minutes per move searched more than 1 million nodes even in 1998 or 1999 and it means that what you invented that did not work for you was different than LMR that top programs use today(for example different conditions when to use LMR).
I believe that some authors like the author of shredder invented some productive LMR independently and if you did not find LMR to be productive for you it means that you did not invent it.
mar wrote:What are you talking about? I certainly don't know Don and I don't care. Wasn't talking about him in the first place. I was simply reacting to what you wrote.
I can't make 3000 elo but I can make 2600. Good enough? I understand assembly well (unlike you obviously). I haven't said that I can't dissassemble a chess engine, you are shifting facts. I could possibly do it.
Will you pay me for that? You know it's a lot of work and don't do RE for living. Just give me a year.
How many chess engines have you written? How many programs in assembler? You know sometimes pure theory is not enough .
Well if someone pays me for a month I can provide him how much of your 2600 elo engine you actually copied from free sources . I'm pretty sure it's more than Vas did in Rybka 1.6 for example.
For the rest, sorry but you are too insignificant to be answered.
Btw. writing 2600 elo engine is a piece of cake. Just put a bit of randomness in the evaluation (change PST values and remove kind safety and detune other parameters a bit) of any of strong open source engine, change a bit LMR, rewrite UCI on your own, copy move generator from some other engine, recompile it and close a source. Since strengthwise you'll be too insignificant for anyone to pay attention, you'll be well below the radar, so you can freely brag how you are an "original author".
It's not surprising at all that since first Ippolit appeared the number of young "original" chess authors with closed-source chess engines in the 2500-2800 elo bracket increased ten-fold...
Milos wrote:Btw. writing 2600 elo engine is a piece of cake. Just put a bit of randomness in the evaluation (change PST values and remove kind safety and detune other parameters a bit) of any of strong open source engine, ...
You have a funny notion of what 'writing an engine' means. The rest of the world would call that 'copying an engine'.
