Page 3 of 6
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:16 pm
by Rolf
Roger Brown wrote:
Please do not indulge in such long bouts of verbiage if this is the end result. Later.
Hi Roger, point taken. I have a couple of questions to you about the rules. I was aware that this drifted apart from what Dr. Muller had discussed, BTW in an elevated code that went over my head. Sorry to Dr. Muller.
Then MHull reacted and wrote about the jealousy of Europeans in CC after the innocent company IBM got the money against Kasparov. This was a nice idea but it's not true. Europeans felt insulted because of the reasons I tried to elaborate. What I wrote is a serious critic and in no way insultive.
Therefore my quesrion. I thought it is unwanted by the charter and you mods that others in the forum are insulted. Therefore I didnt do this. In truth I dont even react at all if I am insulted by the resident Deeb. If you know what I mean.
Now he's insulting me almost after every new message I write, he's almost stalking me. And I keep calm but you are still criticising me although I am so civilized.
I didnt write OFF TOPIC at all after Matt coughed up his new theory. I tried to be sarcastic in my answer. But apparently it wasnt clear enough because of my lame English. Shame on me, Roger, but let me politily point out to you that it comes a bit crass towards a senior if he's criticised on personal grounds because of his character or bad English. I mean I am a guest here and you the hosting representative. The other day a professor wrote bullshit to me and I didnt see you commenting that one. Now I try to explain from what angle the IBM team must be criticised and with it the whole match, I had expected that once in while, say every six months a bit hospitality could be shown to your guests. Or is this too much asked for?
Yes, I'm getting old, but belittling comes outlandish to me. Arent we friends? We are in the same community.
Why not showing some tolerance and just skipping my messages instead of diagnosing them like a medical doctor? I beg you to be smart. You are young but old age isnt an illness but something you all will meet in the future.
Let's handle this without anger. If you informed me that criticising IBM is an absolute nono on CCC, or if you wrote that with my bad English I should only write once every week, then this were ok. But always nitpicking isnt nice. I can assure you that I dont want to cause trouble. I dont even expect dozen answers. I just like it so much if I can post in computerchess across the big ocean. That's all what gives the fun. I write to the best of my abilities, I sinsulte no one here.
But I digress and you must already have understood my plea.
I never complain to the mods nor want to discuss with the mods. Excuse me please, this as an exception.
All the best regards.
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:09 am
by jefk
[quote="bob"] I doubt anyone can explain the entire program, from parallel search to endpoint evaluation... and know what is done where... and how... and most importantly, why... [/quote]
well i certainly don't and i admit it; but it's something else in the
open source (GPL) world i guess; letting Fabien doing other things
why not simply let the Ivanhoe programmers (they provide
the source as well i thought) continue, and enjoy their
product; as long as it's not commercial, and certainly not
sold as an original engine, i would think under such circumstances
- i.e. when also providing open info about who the programmers
are, etc- they could also be allowed to participate in tournaments,
depending on the tournament conditions ofcourse. But engine
ranking tournaments with Arena and so forth, well not much problem.
Another thing is when a commercial program like Rybka indeed
is found to have many remaning Fruit code; like i deduce
from these recent discussions. Well if R3 had it, then its
reasonalbe to assume R4 still has it. Ok,this Vas guy can
try to replace all Fruit code with his own stuff, eg for
an R5 version, but it would be a lot of work i guess..
So there's obviously a problem here..
Finally in case of engines like Houdini, Fire, etc, well imho
they either should be from original, ie built from scratch, in
which case they would not be so strong, or they should
be supplied with complete cource code and other info,
programmer, GPL, etc. Common sense, and i'm not
a lawyer either.
jef
PS how's it in the Stockfish case ? Isnt that one
built one Glaurung or so ?
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:04 am
by benstoker
Don wrote: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.
Unlike the black box closed source producers (let's not call them authors) who we must now, apparently, start with the assumption that they are liars, cheats and scoundrels. There's no way to look at their code without being "unethical" and disassembling their secret code to learn whether they stole the code and are merely calling it their own. Most likely, they're cheats. No reason at all to believe otherwise, unless, of course, you're the Top Dog.
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
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:11 am
by menniepals
Because they are humans.
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:42 pm
by jefk
[quote="Don"] 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.
[quote]
agree;
and as its about people, its also about the law
(and about ethics, but the latter often is a
subjective issue obviously).
So when banning illegal engines,
Stockfish is the best now (?)
hoping it gets even better (the eval seems
a bit exaggerated, especially when compared
with Houdini, Ivanhoe is somewhere in the middle),
jef
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:08 pm
by De Vos W
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...
What annoys here is your arrogance and pointing finger, but you must not forget that you lulled yourself into a false sense of competence.
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:17 pm
by bob
Hood wrote:bob wrote:
I doubt anyone can explain the entire program, from parallel search to endpoint evaluation... and know what is done where... and how... and most importantly, why...
It is nice to know all but... is it necessary ?
The big IT systems consist of many screens, calculations programs, databases files. No one knows all about. Sometimes no one knows how it is working but it is being used and is being useful.
Such a system is developed further, even.
Rgds Hood
If you don't understand the program, exactly how are you going to produce any significant improvements? You might tweak a piece here and there to improve speed. But the occasional major change encompasses the entire code, so that if you have no idea how things work together, it will be impossible to understand the potential interactions. SMP search is a classic example...
We are not talking about "using" a chess program, but are talking about modifying the code to improve the skill level.
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:21 pm
by bob
jefk wrote:bob wrote: I doubt anyone can explain the entire program, from parallel search to endpoint evaluation... and know what is done where... and how... and most importantly, why...
well i certainly don't and i admit it; but it's something else in the
open source (GPL) world i guess; letting Fabien doing other things
why not simply let the Ivanhoe programmers (they provide
the source as well i thought) continue, and enjoy their
product; as long as it's not commercial, and certainly not
sold as an original engine, i would think under such circumstances
- i.e. when also providing open info about who the programmers
are, etc- they could also be allowed to participate in tournaments,
depending on the tournament conditions ofcourse. But engine
ranking tournaments with Arena and so forth, well not much problem.
Another thing is when a commercial program like Rybka indeed
is found to have many remaning Fruit code; like i deduce
from these recent discussions. Well if R3 had it, then its
reasonalbe to assume R4 still has it. Ok,this Vas guy can
try to replace all Fruit code with his own stuff, eg for
an R5 version, but it would be a lot of work i guess..
So there's obviously a problem here..
Finally in case of engines like Houdini, Fire, etc, well imho
they either should be from original, ie built from scratch, in
which case they would not be so strong, or they should
be supplied with complete cource code and other info,
programmer, GPL, etc. Common sense, and i'm not
a lawyer either.
jef
PS how's it in the Stockfish case ? Isnt that one
built one Glaurung or so ?
The problem is complex. If Ivanhoe had come directly from Fruit, there would be no problem with Ivanhoe regarding the GPL assuming they release all source changes. There would be a big problem entering Ivanhoe into a computer chess tournament due to the derivative rule, of course. But Ivanhoe comes from ip*/robo*, and that is more problematic, because they appear to be a reverse-engineered work. If that is the case, they, too are derivative works and can not participate in computer chess tournaments. The current question is, is Rybka a derivative or not. It certainly appears to be one when talking about Rybka 1. 2, 3 and 4 are, at present, not known.
Stockfish is a different case. Tord was the author, and is now working on stockfish, which was simply a rename of glaurung. Much as Crafty descended from Cray Blitz. Same author. Different name...
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 pm
by bob
De Vos W wrote: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...
What annoys here is your arrogance and pointing finger, but you must not forget that you lulled yourself into a false sense of competence.
He seems pretty "competent" to me, so I do not understand either your point, or perhaps, your sarcasm??? Whichever was intended...
Re: Are chessprogrammers jealaous ?
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:54 pm
by Don
Don wrote: 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.
agree;
and as its about people, its also about the law
(and about ethics, but the latter often is a
subjective issue obviously).
So when banning illegal engines,
Stockfish is the best now (?)
I cleaned up your quotes, the formatting was all messed up.
The best engine is a Fruit derivative and the primary author is Fabien Letouzey. He has had a lot of help from many workers such as Vas and Houdart. Stockfish appears to be the second best program in the world.
It's just my viewpoint, but the best thing for computer chess in my view would be to pick one program to represent the "Fruit" family such as Houdini, and get Houdart to admit it's origins and for Fabien to endorse Houdart as one of the authors - Fabien being considered the primary author and the code shared between them (or better yet made open source.)
That would be a most excellent resolution. And there should be a system in place for working on common strong code-bases. I have no problem whatsoever with someone grabbing the sources to some open source program and making improvements - that would benefit all of us. But this effort should be tracked and the versions that are forked off from this should be considered representatives of a single family. The best would be placed on the ratings lists (or each could rate a different version) and only one should be allowed in any tournament and that one to be selected by the primary author(s).
Example: Suppose stockfish was set up to support a common code base that could be forked. Ozzie Puggermiller takes the source code and work independently on it. But he registers his intent with the primary authors of Stockfish (or basically makes in known in an open way what he is doing.) A big tournament comes along and Tord determines that Ozzie has the best derivative and it's entered into the tournament and the authors are listed as Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski and Ozzie Puggermiller, IN THAT ORDER unless the original author decides that the ordering should change for whatever reason he decides.
hoping it gets even better (the eval seems
a bit exaggerated, especially when compared
with Houdini, Ivanhoe is somewhere in the middle),
jef