TalkChess.com

Hi,

it looks that many yes and many not

What are the reasons ?

Rgds
Hood

Perhaps this ?

CEGTlist 4/40:
no Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws
1 Houdini 1.5 x64 1CPU 3254 13 13 2300 77.1% 3043 26.5%
2 Rybka 4.0 x64 1CPU 3180 8 8 4842 66.4% 3061 38.5%
3 Stockfish 2.0 x64 1CPU 3134 14 14 1800 67.2% 3010 31.1%
4 Critter 0.90 x64 1CPU 3093 12 12 2100 59.4% 3027 35.5%
5 Komodo 1.3 x64 1CPU 3036 15 15 1300 51.7% 3024 38.5%
6 Naum 4.2 x64 1CPU 3036 8 8 4740 48.6% 3046 37.6%
7 Deep Shredder 12 x64 1CPU 3003 7 7 6738 51.4% 2993 34.5%
8 Gull 1.1 x64 2990 12 12 2300 45.4% 3022 34.3%
9 Spark 1.0 x64 1CPU 2981 13 13 1800 41.7% 3039 33.3%
10 Hiarcs 13.2 1CPU 2976 11 11 2598 55.7% 2936 31.7%
11 Deep Sjeng ct 2010 w32 1CPU 2972 8 8 4400 51.3% 2963 34.9%
12 Fritz 12 2951 6 6 8995 48.2% 2964 39.5%

Hood wrote:Hi,

it looks that many yes and many not :-)

What are the reasons ?

Rgds
Hood

Many are quiet, many are loud, sometimes it rains and sometimes
it snows, some post about it and most don't, la vie est un mystère.

But why that ones who are not quiet are attacking others.

Publishing Ippolit open source was a real revolution and the revolution has won. It is a fact. Asking revolution if it is legal does not make a point.
It is a fact that we have to accept and live with.

Every programmer can take the sources analyse , modify them and prepare new engine. If he is talented he improve it, if not then not .

The discussion about derivatives, clones in a current way does not make a point.
Had mankind not used the inventions of the predecessors we would have been in caves still. .

It looks that many prefere us to be in caves .

Rgds
Hood

What bother some of the people is not the improving of existent stuff, but the direct or indirect claim that they are the only, original authors. In science you use every day old stuff, but you does not try to make believe that the laws of mechanic movement are yours, not from Newton.
In the case of commercial stuff, there is the extra point you just cannot take it because it is protected by the laws of private property.

Then we have the point of how much derivation is needed to claim something as a solid work. I suppose that Rybka, if it is based on Fruit, went lot beyond it. Then rajlich have a tittle to consider he made something different. But if you take a code, change a couple of things and obfuscate the rest, then we have there cloning.

very simple indeed.

fern

I don't think any Chess programmers really care much about this. It is the non-programming, non-testing,non-tournament-organizing basically no-good-for-anything people that are incessantly making trouble about this issue. Come to think of it, they are actually behaving a lot like they are eaten by jealousy. Not sure what they could be jealous about, though. If they were cloners, they might envie the recogntion authors of original engines get for their hard work, and their 'own' programs merely are shrugged off as clones. But they don't manage even that...

hgm wrote:I don't think any Chess programmers really care much about this. It is the non-programming, non-testing,non-tournament-organizing basically no-good-for-anything people that are incessantly making trouble about this issue. Come to think of it, they are actually behaving a lot like they are eaten by jealousy. Not sure what they could be jealous about, though. If they were cloners, they might envie the recogntion authors of original engines get for their hard work, and their 'own' programs merely are shrugged off as clones. But they don't manage even that...

Hello H.G.,


I am not a programmer.
I am not a tester or part of a testing group.
I am not a tournament director.
I am not a cloner.

I do care about this issue of whether the author of one of the strongest chess engines of all time did something unsavoury to get started

I did not think that for those reasons that I would be classified as no-good-for-anything people.

Ouch, that bites.

Later.

hgm wrote:I don't think any Chess programmers really care much about this. It is the non-programming, non-testing,non-tournament-organizing basically no-good-for-anything people that are incessantly making trouble about this issue. Come to think of it, they are actually behaving a lot like they are eaten by jealousy. Not sure what they could be jealous about, though. If they were cloners, they might envie the recogntion authors of original engines get for their hard work, and their 'own' programs merely are shrugged off as clones. But they don't manage even that...

You implicitly mean that you are not a Chess programmer either ?

Roger Brown wrote:I am not a programmer.
I am not a tester or part of a testing group.
I am not a tournament director.
I am not a cloner.

But you don't satisfy the condition of incessantly making trouble about this issue. I think we all know who fits the description...

Hood wrote:But why that ones who are not quiet are attacking others.

Publishing Ippolit open source was a real revolution and the revolution has won. It is a fact. Asking revolution if it is legal does not make a point.
It is a fact that we have to accept and live with.

Every programmer can take the sources analyse , modify them and prepare new engine. If he is talented he improve it, if not then not .

The discussion about derivatives, clones in a current way does not make a point.
Had mankind not used the inventions of the predecessors we would have been in caves still. .

It looks that many prefere us to be in caves .

This is about taking credit for the work of others and using the work of others for commercial purposes. You do not seem to have a handle on what the actual issue is.

A lot of people here are incensed at the idea that Vas took an open source program and used it for commercial profit and it saddens me that you condone this in the name of "progress."

I am highly in favor of such open source projects as Stockfish. If you think this is about jealously, why has stockfish and their authors remain completely free of any kind of accusation or trouble?

The reason is that their project is completely open and it's obvious from the sources that it is original work, even though it borrows all the same ideas we all use. Also, they do not lurk in the shadows - they are open and giving and do not have any political agenda's or axes to grind.

So please spare us your capitalistic philosophy of progress at any cost. It's not all about the "product", it's about people.

Rgds
Hood