Have you had a gutsful of clone accusations?

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:09 am

I sense that many of us are sick of them. I wonder if this poll will bear that out.

Terry McCracken · Post by **Terry McCracken** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:01 am

What's the point of this? If there are clones they will be discussed, that's one of the functions of this forum.

Not discussing them will hurt the community.

Adam Hair · Post by **Adam Hair** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:18 am

Graham Banks wrote:I sense that many of us are sick of them. I wonder if this poll will bear that out.

Are you suggesting that, if you see some sign that an engine is an unacknowledged clone/derivative, it would be best to say nothing? After all, your title refers to being tired of accusations, not clones. Now, I agree that there has been too many accusations without some sort of evidence to support them. But, it seems to me that responsible members of the community would be supportive towards the identification of unacknowledged clones/derivatives. We want to support authors who show respect to their fellow authors by not stealing their work.

I would like to point out that there is a big distinction to me between acknowledged clones/derivatives and unacknowledged ones. Marco Costalba's introduction of Stockfish was very proper and should have been applauded by all. From what I have read, Thomas Gaksch's introduction of Toga started off wrong and it was necessary for him to correct his mistake.

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:39 am

Adam Hair wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:I sense that many of us are sick of them. I wonder if this poll will bear that out.
Are you suggesting that, if you see some sign that an engine is an unacknowledged clone/derivative, it would be best to say nothing? After all, your title refers to being tired of accusations, not clones. Now, I agree that there has been too many accusations without some sort of evidence to support them. But, it seems to me that responsible members of the community would be supportive towards the identification of unacknowledged clones/derivatives. We want to support authors who show respect to their fellow authors by not stealing their work.

I would like to point out that there is a big distinction to me between acknowledged clones/derivatives and unacknowledged ones. Marco Costalba's introduction of Stockfish was very proper and should have been applauded by all. From what I have read, Thomas Gaksch's introduction of Toga started off wrong and it was necessary for him to correct his mistake.

I have these concerns for a start:

1. Overkill - accusations willy-nilly.

2. Uncertainty as to how far one can trust that a correct decision has been made. After all, look at the disagreement amongst respected programmers over Rybka and also look at the Loop fiasco in light of what has already happened in the past.

I would be extremely surprised if most of the top engine authors hadn't benefitted in some way from open source code, whether it be by studying Ippo, Fruit or something else.
It is unsurprising that many new engines start off as stronger than previously when the authors have stronger open source code available to study than past authors.

Lastly, I doubt that anybody could ever accuse me of not supporting engine authors.
I'm just expressing an opinion that the whole situation brasses me off and I wondered if that was the prevailing feeling in our community.

Adam Hair · Post by **Adam Hair** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:02 am

Graham Banks wrote: Lastly, I doubt that anybody could ever accuse me of not supporting engine authors.
I'm just expressing an opinion that the whole situation brasses me off and I wondered if that was the prevailing feeling in our community.

I do hope that you realize I was not doubting your support for authors.

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:07 am

Adam Hair wrote:
Graham Banks wrote: Lastly, I doubt that anybody could ever accuse me of not supporting engine authors.
I'm just expressing an opinion that the whole situation brasses me off and I wondered if that was the prevailing feeling in our community.
I do hope that you realize I was not doubting your support for authors.

Of course not Adam. I know you better than that.

Mark Mason · Post by **Mark Mason** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:56 am

Graham Banks wrote:I sense that many of us are sick of them. I wonder if this poll will bear that out.

Graham,

Yes, yes, yes - absolutely 100% sick of it. I have been visiting this forum for several years (maybe not contributing as frequently as some, but when I have something constructive to offer). It used to be a fine source of information, views, opinions, advice about all things computer chess and chess engines, frequented by some of the most respected names in this fine hobby. However in the last 12 months or so it seems to have turned into a place for non-stop accusations and bickering about engine origins and cloning accusations. More often than not these threads then degenerate into a flame war and hurling of insults between certain individuals which frankly become extremely tedious. The cloning and engine authorship disputes seen almost to have taken over the original purpose of the forum and I will be honest, I would now rather visit other forums who focus more on computer chess and testing of engines rather than getting obsessed with whether or not they may be a clone.

Just my personal view and apologies for directness - but responding directly to the question posed by Graham.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:20 am

Terry McCracken wrote:What's the point of this? If there are clones they will be discussed, that's one of the functions of this forum.

Not discussing them will hurt the community.

Now look Terry, we agree

The clones are a cancer that is ruining our hobby and until we find the right chemo therapy it should be discussed. CCC has a special forum for that, it only should be given more status by making it read-all.

BTW, a chemo therapy is in the make, stay tuned.

lucasart · Post by **lucasart** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:25 am

Terry McCracken wrote:What's the point of this? If there are clones they will be discussed, that's one of the functions of this forum.

Not discussing them will hurt the community.

Yes, but it's the purpose of the Engine Origins forum, not this one. What Graham is saying is that polluting the General Topics forum with those endless flame wars is annoying... Anyway, I certainly voted Yes to this one!

Don · Post by **Don** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:37 am

Rebel wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:What's the point of this? If there are clones they will be discussed, that's one of the functions of this forum.

Not discussing them will hurt the community.
Now look Terry, we agree

The clones are a cancer that is ruining our hobby and until we find the right chemo therapy it should be discussed. CCC has a special forum for that, it only should be given more status by making it read-all.

BTW, a chemo therapy is in the make, stay tuned.

And I agree with this 100% too.