Participants WCCC 2007

[cooldalek]

I quit chess programming.

Does that mean we won't see a new Toga?

Unfortunately seems that way.

I really fail to see what the problem is that some people have with Toga.
The Fruit 2.1 source code was released under the GPL license.
Seems that Thomas has taken advantage of Fabien's generosity to further improve on Fruit 2.1.
Why should that be a problem?

Hi Graham,
That should be a problem because his creation wiped the floor with their engines and he was attacked that this is not an original work....
To improve something which is already damn good is not easy and Thomas did a great job

Agreed.
The way that people treat others makes me sad sometimes.

Well people should feel very proud of themselves. One of the strongest chess programs in history, used by many people all over the world to analyse their games and find new lines in their openings, will no longer be updated. Congratulations. If it carries on like this we'll have Rybka and nothing else. And then we won't need a board

[Eelco de Groot]

I quit chess programming.

Does that mean we won't see a new Toga?

Unfortunately seems that way.

I really fail to see what the problem is that some people have with Toga.
The Fruit 2.1 source code was released under the GPL license.
Seems that Thomas has taken advantage of Fabien's generosity to further improve on Fruit 2.1.
Why should that be a problem?

I hope I or we don't start a new megathread on this topic, but as I remember it, YMMV, your mileage may vary, people don't have as much an issue with Toga in GPL as with the fact that Thomas ininitially passed it off as his own creation, or at least did not give credit to the Fruit sources. This was some time ago, hence the remark about beating dead horses from Alessandro Scotti. Later on there were some problems with Thomas distributing his betas to a limited number of betatesters instead of making them publicly available right away, but this was possible within the GPL license framework as Fabien later also admitted.

But not giving credit is not something easily forgiven. Only Albert Einstein could get away with not crediting his sources.


I don't however see much wrong with Toga as being a part of the GPL open source project that Fabien Letouzey started with Fruit although it apparently did not turn out quite the way Fabien had envisioned it. For my part I am grateful for Thomas' Toga engine and it has been and continues to be a fascinating and engrossing piece of work, not to mention a very powerful analysis tool. Thank you Thomas!

Maybe Thomas or somebody else will pick up the threads later, there is certainly a lot of potential still in Toga!

Eelco

[Graham Banks]

people don't have as much an issue with Toga in GPL as with the fact that Thomas ininitially passed it off as his own creation, or at least did not give credit to the Fruit sources. This was some time ago, hence the remark about beating dead horses from Alessandro Scotti.

Yes - forgiveness is a human trait that is sadly lacking.

[pijl]

people don't have as much an issue with Toga in GPL as with the fact that Thomas ininitially passed it off as his own creation, or at least did not give credit to the Fruit sources

Not quite. This initial 'sin' is more than forgiven by obeying the GPL later. That was never my point.

The thing that got me angry (and perhaps I should have made that more explicit) is that Thomas wrote that people should accept that some people were not that silly to do all the work themselves (at least, this is how I read his post).

The title of this thread still says 'Participants WCCC'.
The WCCC should only be open to those people that are silly enough to create everything themselves (or at least in a cooperating team).

I have no problem with Toga as a GPL deriviate of Fruit which is obviously making some people happy.
I have no problem with gridchess as a research tool/subject

I do have a problem with either of them entering in the WCCC.
Richard.

[mclane]

Since 95 things went down the hill since my dealer prefered to sue with competitors

i remember those battles between stamer, weiner and niggemann. those were funny times

you were the enemy Gerd. And Peter )

[mclane]

Some people do not want to understand me they only search for negative things in my sentences.

but it doesn´t matter. I quit chess programming. This hobby is taken to seriously from some people here. From commercial programmers i can understand their hate against fruit/toga and me a little bit, because it makes no fun to loose against an open source engine and it could decrease their selling rates. but i cant´t understand it from amateurs.

a thick skin is needed.
even if you do computerchess as a hobby, like me.

there are always people who come and complain or attack you.
for various reasons. such is life.
a certain kind of ignorance is needed. not for people like gerd. but against the unfriendly guys.

[Graham Banks]

I do have a problem with either of them entering in the WCCC.
Richard.

Fair enough and I agree.

Regards, Graham.

[bob]

OK... this makes a little more sense now. I was contacted a while back and asked about it. My response was along the lines of this:

(a) I'm not going to participate this year as things were thrown together too quickly and there was not enough time to make the kind of preparations we would normally want for playing in a WCCC (hardware, book, program changes, etc.)

(b) I have strong reservations about allowing any "entity" to compete if it is based primarily on one or more chess programs, even if the authors agree. If one of the agreeing authors also participates then I would be 100% against the idea since two entries for the same program should not be allowed (but there is precedent as ICCA allowed "Gunda" (a crafty clone) to enter the WCCC in either 1996 or 1997, so there is a bit of precedent albiet a bad one.

(c) I told them that if the ICGA chose to allow such entries, then I would have no objection, but that I personally strongly disagreed with the idea in general...

Please note I'm not in the ICGA organisation, so this is just my opinion.
(a)
You appear to be participating, because you are listed in a team.
(b)
A "team" is not a team unless all members agree it is.
(c)
An entry is invalid if the authors are not in the team associated with the entry.
Are you saying you're not part of the team?
If so then they cannot use Crafty code.

I'm certainly not part of any "team" except for "team Crafty" with Mike, Tracy and Peter.

[bob]

OK... this makes a little more sense now. I was contacted a while back and asked about it. My response was along the lines of this:

(a) I'm not going to participate this year as things were thrown together too quickly and there was not enough time to make the kind of preparations we would normally want for playing in a WCCC (hardware, book, program changes, etc.)

Hi Bob! Does this mean Crafty 21.5 source can be open now?

Best,
Kirill

Actually 21.6 will be open before long. We are trying to do final testing and discard things that don't work so well...

[Kirill Kryukov]

The thing that got me angry (and perhaps I should have made that more explicit) is that Thomas wrote that people should accept that some people were not that silly to do all the work themselves (at least, this is how I read his post).

The title of this thread still says 'Participants WCCC'.
The WCCC should only be open to those people that are silly enough to create everything themselves (or at least in a cooperating team).

I have no problem with Toga as a GPL deriviate of Fruit which is obviously making some people happy.
I have no problem with gridchess as a research tool/subject

I do have a problem with either of them entering in the WCCC.
Richard.

If WCCC was conducted this way you like, no one would be allowed to use EGTB there, except a single team which has Eugene Nalimov as member. Do you realize this? And also which team it should be if he does not answer the mails?