TalkChess.com

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

Terrific!

Graham Banks wrote:

rdan1987 wrote:

Thomas Gaksch wrote:
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?

You need a little history lesson concerning how Toga was introduced (initially) and how the GPL license was adhered to (and if Fruit or even Fabien's name was mentioned at all.)

Regards,

-elc.

Enrico wrote: You need a little history lesson concerning how Toga was introduced (initially) and how the GPL license was adhered to (and if Fruit or even Fabien's name was mentioned at all.)

Regards,

-elc.

Hi Enrico,

I already know the history, but it seems that no matter how many times that Thomas has apologised, he has been continually attacked by many.
How many times must one apologise? Some folk around here have trouble apologising even once when necessary.
As I said, forgiveness is a human trait that seems to be in short supply around here.
I am sure that if he really does quit chess programming, many will take note of those who harrassed him into doing so.

Regards, Graham.

pijl wrote:

Eelco de Groot wrote: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.

I think that Thomas never used the word "silly"
The problem that I have with modifying source of other is that I dislike to work on something that I do not understand only based on understanding part of it.

My opinion is that changing fruit could be more interesting if you solve first list of exercises in english language when the meaning of solving them is writing fruit.

Uri

Kirill Kryukov wrote:

pijl wrote: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?

Yes, I know. However, for EGTB and GUIs (as especially in UCI that is part of the game playing code also!) usually an exception is made.

If the ICGA or the players (in the players meeting) would decide that this is no longer acceptable I have no problem with that. It would stimulate programmers to create their own formats which many are already doing anyway.

I'm not using a GUI during the WCCC, and play/test often without EGTB's anyway.
Richard.

pijl wrote: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.

Hi,

I share your point of view, but what can the organizers say if Fabien and Bob give their permissions? How can the organizers make a difference between patchwork and team work?

bob wrote:(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...

That is a strange way to agree, while strongly disagreeing. If Bob actually sent such a message to the organizers, then the organizers should have rejected Gridchess. But we do not know what actually happened, and this thread already contains way too much speculation.

Rémi

pijl wrote:

Eelco de Groot wrote: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.

Hi Richard,
i wrote:
"it is only a hobby for most of the engine developers and nobody has much time. in my opinion it is so silly to invent the whole wheel again and again. people who like it to implement everything from the scratch should do that but should accept that there are also people who only like to improve different parts in an open source chess engine. "

i am sorry if you understand it in the way, that i think that engine developers which write a program from the scratch are silly. that is defenitely not so. i have a lot of respect from people like you. i only wanted to say that for people with less time it is absoletely ok to try to improve an open source engine for fun. and that those people should also be accepted. but i have the feeling that those people who "only" improve parts of an open source engine are always made bad from some people (including developers) in this forum (and i do not mean you).

if you are analyzing yourself (sorry, i am not able to finde the right words in english) you see that you have the tendency to find only negative sentences in my thread. i think if someone else would have written my sentences above you wouldn´t have the feeling to be attacked from that person.
and if fruit/toga wouldn´t be so strong nobody would care at all.

but of course i can be wrong.

Thomas

Graham Banks wrote:

Enrico wrote: You need a little history lesson concerning how Toga was introduced (initially) and how the GPL license was adhered to (and if Fruit or even Fabien's name was mentioned at all.)

Regards,

-elc.

Hi Enrico,

I already know the history, but it seems that no matter how many times that Thomas has apologised, he has been continually attacked by many.
How many times must one apologise? Some folk around here have trouble apologising even once when necessary.
As I said, forgiveness is a human trait that seems to be in short supply around here.
I am sure that if he really does quit chess programming, many will take note of those who harrassed him into doing so.

Regards, Graham.

Perhaps if you devoted the immense time out of your life that dedicated chess programmers do you could understand why they take such a wrongdoing so serious. Even after working beside Mark for nearly a decade, I'm sure I don't even fully understand the "slap in the face" that such an act really is as I am not up late as many nights pulling my hair out to make progress...

You speak of it as if you were to bump in to someone or raise your voice and then apologize. Oops -- Sorry... But it's not that simple.

As far as the reference to folks that "have a problem apologizing even once when necessary" -- Don't beat around the bush; What/Who do you speak of specifically?

Regards,

-elc.

Enrico wrote: Perhaps if you devoted the immense time out of your life that dedicated chess programmers do you could understand why they take such a wrongdoing so serious. Even after working beside Mark for nearly a decade, I'm sure I don't even fully understand the "slap in the face" that such an act really is as I am not up late as many nights pulling my hair out to make progress...

You speak of it as if you were to bump in to someone or raise your voice and then apologize. Oops -- Sorry... But it's not that simple.

I can understand the seriousness of the original wrongdoing, but many have accepted Thomas' heart-rendered apologies and moved on, including Fabien who was the one most wronged.

Enrico wrote: As far as the reference to folks that "have a problem apologizing even once when necessary" -- Don't beat around the bush; What/Who do you speak of specifically?

Regards,

-elc.

To be honest, I wasn't specifically referring to any person in particular, but I can understand that maybe you felt I was.
I hold no grudges against anybody.

Regards, Graham.

Thomas Gaksch wrote: I quit chess programming.

I hope, you will not drop this hobby entirely. The improvement of Fruit was considerably and surely you have more ideas to progress.

Keep on!


Greetings Thomas