Movei, The Baron, and TSCP

[Macumba]

I published SCCT Scratch Rating (a few minutes ago):
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/?page_id=634

Note that so far approx. 2700 games are already played
And the scratch engine database includes 113 games lost on time
That means in every 100 games, there is possibility to see 3-4 games forfeits on time (the number is not too big, honestly I expected much more...)
Those games which are lost on time are mainly belong to Djinn v1.008 (39 games), without those lost games on time, probably Djinn would be in Top 20

Since today, I started testing only the Top 20 scratch engines

Soon I will test a few scratch engines more (Jazz,Milady,Neurone...)

Games and more info coming soon!

Have fun,
Sedat

I see that the baron is included in the scratch engines.
Note that I read that the baron started from tscp.

http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/TSCP

Note that I started from some code from tscp but not from some working code(For example the code that I started did not include something of the evaluation function of tscp) so it is not the same for movei.

I do not claim that the version of baron that you test is similiar to tscp
but it may be interesting to know results by the similiarity tool.

Baron is completely original. I suppose this kind of affirmation remembers me about your fantastic move 1. h3!!.

Any real chess programmer, who knows Richard Pijl, not you of course, can affirm without any doubt that new Baron was created from scratch. Your Movei is derived from TSCP because you said it openly here.

I find it so silly, that I suppose Richard will pass this. My goodness, the things that I have to read here!

Note that
I did not say that the new baron include something from tscp but only that baron started from tscp.

From the page that miguel gave:
"Although all of Tom's original code has gone now, it gave me the opportunity to quickly build a working program."

I admit openly that I started from some code of tscp that did not include evaluation function or move generator that it is clearly less than what Richard admitted.

You distort my words when you say that I admit openly that movei is a tscp derivative.

If we define chess code as code that is relevant only for chess and not for other games then
I think that there was never chess code that is common for movei and tscp(unless you consider some names of variables to be chess code).

The common pv array that movei use and also tscp use is not a chess code because it can be used also for other games and I do not consider the way that I store moves to be chess code(originally by struct like tscp and later I replaced it by integer)

I guess that when richard said that all of Tom's original code has gone now he meant only to chess code and I doubt that he replaced every line to see that there is no common lines between the baron and tscp.

No, I don't distort anything. It is you that affirms things without having any base. You said it here that Movei derived from TSCP. There is no distortion. Simple.

As always, you guess wrongly. Richard is an original chess programmer and his code is completely created from scratch, programe that you won't have.

End of story.

Richard doesn't post because he doesn't have time to read the silliness of post like this.... Blah... Blah... etc. Movei is derived engine too from TSCP. Using your words: I _guess_ you attack what you did not reach in years...

New Baron is an original engine but I _guess_ that you don't understand that. I _do not claim_ that Richard will read this. _My point_ was to show that you are always posting baseless statements.

I won't answer to Miguel since it doesn't make sense to explain 1000 times what is already known.

Have a _guessing weekend_



Arturo Ochoa.

Here is a link for my post
I did not say that movei is derived from tscp.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 38&t=50942

I did not start with tscp and most of the code of tscp was never in movei
and I understand the claim that movei is derived from tscp to be that I started from the full tscp code and modified it.

Note that I believe richard and I consider the baron as original engine
but
1)In order to have an original engine you do not need to have nothing from another code.

Chess programs use the same code for tablebases and people still consider them as original engines.

2)It is not clear to me what richard meant when he said
""Although all of Tom's original code has gone now"
It is possible that he meant only to what I consider to be chess code.
It is also possible that after starting from tscp he started again from scratch.

I believe what he is going to say about it but I do not believe you about it
after you distort my words.

1) So , in short, Movei is derived fully from TSCP. So, no need to say _I guess_. Indeed, it is fact. 1-0

2) So you know change from _I guess_ to _I believe_: Once you are wrong in your beliefs... New Baron is a completely original engine. 2-0

3) Baron has own tablebase,s so no Nalimov tablebases in new Baron. 3-0

4) As you did not read my answers: Baron is completly new. It is not _a possibility_. It is a fact. 4-0.

End of story. Over...

1 is not correct and you continue to claim things that are not correct.
I did not start with the full code of tscp and most of the code of tscp was never in movei.

for 2 Richard said nothing so it is undecided.

for 3 I did not claim that the baron use nalimov tablebases.

for 4
We do not know the facts.
There is no way to prove that engines are original when you do not have the source.
You can only decide if to trust or not trust the author(it is possible to prove that some engine is not original but you cannot catch all non original engines.

2. Baron is an original engine from scratch. 1-0
3. 1-0 Direct as Baron has its own tablebases.
4. It is you who are wrong because you affirm things without base. 1-0

Richard is trustable because I know him for more than 10 years I dont trust you because you declare wrong things all the time. 1-0

End of story - Over.

[Uri Blass]

I published SCCT Scratch Rating (a few minutes ago):
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/?page_id=634

Note that so far approx. 2700 games are already played
And the scratch engine database includes 113 games lost on time
That means in every 100 games, there is possibility to see 3-4 games forfeits on time (the number is not too big, honestly I expected much more...)
Those games which are lost on time are mainly belong to Djinn v1.008 (39 games), without those lost games on time, probably Djinn would be in Top 20

Since today, I started testing only the Top 20 scratch engines

Soon I will test a few scratch engines more (Jazz,Milady,Neurone...)

Games and more info coming soon!

Have fun,
Sedat

I see that the baron is included in the scratch engines.
Note that I read that the baron started from tscp.

http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/TSCP

Note that I started from some code from tscp but not from some working code(For example the code that I started did not include something of the evaluation function of tscp) so it is not the same for movei.

I do not claim that the version of baron that you test is similiar to tscp
but it may be interesting to know results by the similiarity tool.

Baron is completely original. I suppose this kind of affirmation remembers me about your fantastic move 1. h3!!.

Any real chess programmer, who knows Richard Pijl, not you of course, can affirm without any doubt that new Baron was created from scratch. Your Movei is derived from TSCP because you said it openly here.

I find it so silly, that I suppose Richard will pass this. My goodness, the things that I have to read here!

Note that
I did not say that the new baron include something from tscp but only that baron started from tscp.

From the page that miguel gave:
"Although all of Tom's original code has gone now, it gave me the opportunity to quickly build a working program."

I admit openly that I started from some code of tscp that did not include evaluation function or move generator that it is clearly less than what Richard admitted.

You distort my words when you say that I admit openly that movei is a tscp derivative.

If we define chess code as code that is relevant only for chess and not for other games then
I think that there was never chess code that is common for movei and tscp(unless you consider some names of variables to be chess code).

The common pv array that movei use and also tscp use is not a chess code because it can be used also for other games and I do not consider the way that I store moves to be chess code(originally by struct like tscp and later I replaced it by integer)

I guess that when richard said that all of Tom's original code has gone now he meant only to chess code and I doubt that he replaced every line to see that there is no common lines between the baron and tscp.

No, I don't distort anything. It is you that affirms things without having any base. You said it here that Movei derived from TSCP. There is no distortion. Simple.

As always, you guess wrongly. Richard is an original chess programmer and his code is completely created from scratch, programe that you won't have.

End of story.

Richard doesn't post because he doesn't have time to read the silliness of post like this.... Blah... Blah... etc. Movei is derived engine too from TSCP. Using your words: I _guess_ you attack what you did not reach in years...

New Baron is an original engine but I _guess_ that you don't understand that. I _do not claim_ that Richard will read this. _My point_ was to show that you are always posting baseless statements.

I won't answer to Miguel since it doesn't make sense to explain 1000 times what is already known.

Have a _guessing weekend_



Arturo Ochoa.

Here is a link for my post
I did not say that movei is derived from tscp.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 38&t=50942

I did not start with tscp and most of the code of tscp was never in movei
and I understand the claim that movei is derived from tscp to be that I started from the full tscp code and modified it.

Note that I believe richard and I consider the baron as original engine
but
1)In order to have an original engine you do not need to have nothing from another code.

Chess programs use the same code for tablebases and people still consider them as original engines.

2)It is not clear to me what richard meant when he said
""Although all of Tom's original code has gone now"
It is possible that he meant only to what I consider to be chess code.
It is also possible that after starting from tscp he started again from scratch.

I believe what he is going to say about it but I do not believe you about it
after you distort my words.

1) So , in short, Movei is derived fully from TSCP. So, no need to say _I guess_. Indeed, it is fact. 1-0

2) So you know change from _I guess_ to _I believe_: Once you are wrong in your beliefs... New Baron is a completely original engine. 2-0

3) Baron has own tablebase,s so no Nalimov tablebases in new Baron. 3-0

4) As you did not read my answers: Baron is completly new. It is not _a possibility_. It is a fact. 4-0.

End of story. Over...

1 is not correct and you continue to claim things that are not correct.
I did not start with the full code of tscp and most of the code of tscp was never in movei.

for 2 Richard said nothing so it is undecided.

for 3 I did not claim that the baron use nalimov tablebases.

for 4
We do not know the facts.
There is no way to prove that engines are original when you do not have the source.
You can only decide if to trust or not trust the author(it is possible to prove that some engine is not original but you cannot catch all non original engines.

2. Baron is an original engine from scratch. 1-0
3. 1-0 Direct as Baron has its own tablebases.
4. It is you who are wrong because you affirm things without base. 1-0

Richard is trustable because I know him for more than 10 years I dont trust you because you declare wrong things all the time. 1-0

End of story - Over.

1)For 2 even in case that you are right
the facts are that old baron started from tscp and I do not remember a claim of richard that at some point he stopped developing the old baron and wrote a new engine from scratch.

I believe him if he say it(that is different than you say it) but I am not supposed to guess it.
Some programmers who start from scratch at some point
change the name of the program and Tord changed the name from gothmog to glaurung after starting again(the new name after more programmers joined is stockfish).

It did not happen with the baron.

2)For 3 what I wrote about tablebases was not specifically about the baron.
My point is that even programs that include nalimov tablebases like Crafty are considered to be original engines so having some code from other sources does not mean that the engine is not original.

[Macumba]

I published SCCT Scratch Rating (a few minutes ago):
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/?page_id=634

Note that so far approx. 2700 games are already played
And the scratch engine database includes 113 games lost on time
That means in every 100 games, there is possibility to see 3-4 games forfeits on time (the number is not too big, honestly I expected much more...)
Those games which are lost on time are mainly belong to Djinn v1.008 (39 games), without those lost games on time, probably Djinn would be in Top 20

Since today, I started testing only the Top 20 scratch engines

Soon I will test a few scratch engines more (Jazz,Milady,Neurone...)

Games and more info coming soon!

Have fun,
Sedat

I see that the baron is included in the scratch engines.
Note that I read that the baron started from tscp.

http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/TSCP

Note that I started from some code from tscp but not from some working code(For example the code that I started did not include something of the evaluation function of tscp) so it is not the same for movei.

I do not claim that the version of baron that you test is similiar to tscp
but it may be interesting to know results by the similiarity tool.

Baron is completely original. I suppose this kind of affirmation remembers me about your fantastic move 1. h3!!.

Any real chess programmer, who knows Richard Pijl, not you of course, can affirm without any doubt that new Baron was created from scratch. Your Movei is derived from TSCP because you said it openly here.

I find it so silly, that I suppose Richard will pass this. My goodness, the things that I have to read here!

Note that
I did not say that the new baron include something from tscp but only that baron started from tscp.

From the page that miguel gave:
"Although all of Tom's original code has gone now, it gave me the opportunity to quickly build a working program."

I admit openly that I started from some code of tscp that did not include evaluation function or move generator that it is clearly less than what Richard admitted.

You distort my words when you say that I admit openly that movei is a tscp derivative.

If we define chess code as code that is relevant only for chess and not for other games then
I think that there was never chess code that is common for movei and tscp(unless you consider some names of variables to be chess code).

The common pv array that movei use and also tscp use is not a chess code because it can be used also for other games and I do not consider the way that I store moves to be chess code(originally by struct like tscp and later I replaced it by integer)

I guess that when richard said that all of Tom's original code has gone now he meant only to chess code and I doubt that he replaced every line to see that there is no common lines between the baron and tscp.

No, I don't distort anything. It is you that affirms things without having any base. You said it here that Movei derived from TSCP. There is no distortion. Simple.

As always, you guess wrongly. Richard is an original chess programmer and his code is completely created from scratch, programe that you won't have.

End of story.

Richard doesn't post because he doesn't have time to read the silliness of post like this.... Blah... Blah... etc. Movei is derived engine too from TSCP. Using your words: I _guess_ you attack what you did not reach in years...

New Baron is an original engine but I _guess_ that you don't understand that. I _do not claim_ that Richard will read this. _My point_ was to show that you are always posting baseless statements.

I won't answer to Miguel since it doesn't make sense to explain 1000 times what is already known.

Have a _guessing weekend_



Arturo Ochoa.

Here is a link for my post
I did not say that movei is derived from tscp.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 38&t=50942

I did not start with tscp and most of the code of tscp was never in movei
and I understand the claim that movei is derived from tscp to be that I started from the full tscp code and modified it.

Note that I believe richard and I consider the baron as original engine
but
1)In order to have an original engine you do not need to have nothing from another code.

Chess programs use the same code for tablebases and people still consider them as original engines.

2)It is not clear to me what richard meant when he said
""Although all of Tom's original code has gone now"
It is possible that he meant only to what I consider to be chess code.
It is also possible that after starting from tscp he started again from scratch.

I believe what he is going to say about it but I do not believe you about it
after you distort my words.

1) So , in short, Movei is derived fully from TSCP. So, no need to say _I guess_. Indeed, it is fact. 1-0

2) So you know change from _I guess_ to _I believe_: Once you are wrong in your beliefs... New Baron is a completely original engine. 2-0

3) Baron has own tablebase,s so no Nalimov tablebases in new Baron. 3-0

4) As you did not read my answers: Baron is completly new. It is not _a possibility_. It is a fact. 4-0.

End of story. Over...

1 is not correct and you continue to claim things that are not correct.
I did not start with the full code of tscp and most of the code of tscp was never in movei.

for 2 Richard said nothing so it is undecided.

for 3 I did not claim that the baron use nalimov tablebases.

for 4
We do not know the facts.
There is no way to prove that engines are original when you do not have the source.
You can only decide if to trust or not trust the author(it is possible to prove that some engine is not original but you cannot catch all non original engines.

2. Baron is an original engine from scratch. 1-0
3. 1-0 Direct as Baron has its own tablebases.
4. It is you who are wrong because you affirm things without base. 1-0

Richard is trustable because I know him for more than 10 years I dont trust you because you declare wrong things all the time. 1-0

End of story - Over.

1)For 2 even in case that you are right
the facts are that old baron started from tscp and I do not remember a claim of richard that at some point he stopped developing the old baron and wrote a new engine from scratch.

I believe him if he say it(that is different than you say it) but I am not supposed to guess it.
Some programmers who start from scratch at some point
change the name of the program and Tord changed the name from gothmog to glaurung after starting again(the new name after more programmers joined is stockfish).

It did not happen with the baron.

2)For 3 what I wrote about tablebases was not specifically about the baron.
My point is that even programs that include nalimov tablebases like Crafty are considered to be original engines so having some code from other sources does not mean that the engine is not original.

1) I am right The wrong is always you. You don't remember because you were not involved in new Baron. Baron is not Stockfish. Movei is derived from TSCP. 1-0

2) I _believe_ you don't read. I repeat: Every code in Baron is original now.
1-0

Over.-

[Adam Hair]

1) The version of The Baron that Sedat is including in his rating list is the last publicly available version, The Baron 2.23. The Baron 3.xx should have never entered the discussion.

2) Uri noted that, if The Baron 2.23 was included in Sedat's list, then Movei should be included. The Baron began as Tscp (as Richard noted in the changes.txt file that comes with The Baron 2.23). Movei uses some non-chess playing code from Tscp.

3) Uri never called either engine a derivative of Tscp. The point was that Movei should not be excluded from Sedat's list for not being written from scratch if The Baron was included.

Anything else posted is irrelevant. Let's end the accusations.

[Macumba]

1) The version of The Baron that Sedat is including in his rating list is the last publicly available version, The Baron 2.23. The Baron 3.xx should have never entered the discussion.

2) Uri noted that, if The Baron 2.23 was included in Sedat's list, then Movei should be included. The Baron began as Tscp (as Richard noted in the changes.txt file that comes with The Baron 2.23). Movei uses some non-chess playing code from Tscp.

3) Uri never called either engine a derivative of Tscp. The point was that Movei should not be excluded from Sedat's list for not being written from scratch if The Baron was included.

Anything else posted is irrelevant. Let's end the accusations.

On the contrary, it is very relevant. I was not the who that began to cry about the Baron.

1) It is funny how somebody can accuse somebody like Richard of being derived engine author. If he used that, it happened in the every initial 0.X versions... Later was a complete original engine. 1-0

2) Uri Blah establishes many wrong things in general. Why should I read him and do nothing?

3) It is the same thing. He said that Richard began from TSCP but Movei too. I just left the same point. I can assure that Movei is more TSCP than any other engine available.

You arguments are also irrelevant in this discussion. Sorry no matters that you a moderator.

[Adam Hair]

1) The version of The Baron that Sedat is including in his rating list is the last publicly available version, The Baron 2.23. The Baron 3.xx should have never entered the discussion.

2) Uri noted that, if The Baron 2.23 was included in Sedat's list, then Movei should be included. The Baron began as Tscp (as Richard noted in the changes.txt file that comes with The Baron 2.23). Movei uses some non-chess playing code from Tscp.

3) Uri never called either engine a derivative of Tscp. The point was that Movei should not be excluded from Sedat's list for not being written from scratch if The Baron was included.

Anything else posted is irrelevant. Let's end the accusations.

On the contrary, it is very relevant. I was not the who that began to cry about the Baron.

1) It is funny how somebody can accuse somebody like Richard of being derived engine author. If he used that, it happened in the every initial 0.X versions... Later was a complete original engine. 1-0

2) Uri Blah establishes many wrong things in general. Why should I read him and do nothing?

3) It is the same thing. He said that Richard began from TSCP but Movei too. I just left the same point. I can assure that Movei is more TSCP than any other engine available.

You arguments are also irrelevant in this discussion. Sorry no matters that you a moderator.

Arturo, you are choosing to be offended rather than reading the posts for what they are.

My position as moderator only matters in one way in this thread. You are the only person who is making an accusation about derivation from TSCP. If you choose to continue, then I am going to require that you supply proof. If you can assure us that "Movei is more TSCP than any other engine available", then surely you can provide all of us with the proof. If not, then you owe Uri an apology. At the very least, you will need to quit making the accusation.

[Macumba]

1) The version of The Baron that Sedat is including in his rating list is the last publicly available version, The Baron 2.23. The Baron 3.xx should have never entered the discussion.

2) Uri noted that, if The Baron 2.23 was included in Sedat's list, then Movei should be included. The Baron began as Tscp (as Richard noted in the changes.txt file that comes with The Baron 2.23). Movei uses some non-chess playing code from Tscp.

3) Uri never called either engine a derivative of Tscp. The point was that Movei should not be excluded from Sedat's list for not being written from scratch if The Baron was included.

Anything else posted is irrelevant. Let's end the accusations.

On the contrary, it is very relevant. I was not the who that began to cry about the Baron.

1) It is funny how somebody can accuse somebody like Richard of being derived engine author. If he used that, it happened in the every initial 0.X versions... Later was a complete original engine. 1-0

2) Uri Blah establishes many wrong things in general. Why should I read him and do nothing?

3) It is the same thing. He said that Richard began from TSCP but Movei too. I just left the same point. I can assure that Movei is more TSCP than any other engine available.

You arguments are also irrelevant in this discussion. Sorry no matters that you a moderator.

Arturo, you are choosing to be offended rather than reading the posts for what they are.

My position as moderator only matters in one way in this thread. You are the only person who is making an accusation about derivation from TSCP. If you choose to continue, then I am going to require that you supply proof. If you can assure us that "Movei is more TSCP than any other engine available", then surely you can provide all of us with the proof. If not, then you owe Uri an apology. At the very least, you will need to quit making the accusation.

1) I did not choose to be offended but to prove that Blass declares wrong things to justify his engine.

2) I know Richard would not waste time with Blass as I did now.

3) Blass began from TSCP and he declared that many timew and how he was not able to make progress.

4) I don't have to apologize to Blass. It is him who has to apologize to Richard instead.

5) You can ban me from the Forum if you consider it. There is no much useful that I can find from the Blass posts...

[Adam Hair]

1) I did not choose to be offended but to prove that Blass declares wrong things to justify his engine.

2) I know Richard would not waste time with Blass as I did now.

3) Blass began from TSCP and he declared that many timew and how he was not able to make progress.

4) I don't have to apologize to Blass. It is him who has to apologize to Richard instead.

5) You can ban me from the Forum if you consider it. There is no much useful that I can find from the Blass posts...

Last time, Arturo. I have received more than one complaint from members about you attacking Uri. It is uncalled for. Uri has not attacked or lied about Richard. He defended his own engine by noting that Richard started with TSCP. He has not said that The Baron is a derivative. Nor has he said that Movei is a derivative. That is your claim, and you keep choosing to make it without a proof. That can be considered libel.

I have no desire to ban you from the forum. But you are being unnecessarily aggressive.

[Macumba]

1) I did not choose to be offended but to prove that Blass declares wrong things to justify his engine.

2) I know Richard would not waste time with Blass as I did now.

3) Blass began from TSCP and he declared that many timew and how he was not able to make progress.

4) I don't have to apologize to Blass. It is him who has to apologize to Richard instead.

5) You can ban me from the Forum if you consider it. There is no much useful that I can find from the Blass posts...

Last time, Arturo. I have received more than one complaint from members about you attacking Uri. It is uncalled for. Uri has not attacked or lied about Richard. He defended his own engine by noting that Richard started with TSCP. He has not said that The Baron is a derivative. Nor has he said that Movei is a derivative. That is your claim, and you keep choosing to make it without a proof. That can be considered libel.

I have no desire to ban you from the forum. But you are being unnecessarily aggressive.

1) Blass defends using the arguments of another engine, what is despictable.

2) Libel is what he did to justify his engine. I will never agree wih that.

3) That is a proof: He began from TSCP and he lasted for years trying unsucessfuly to improve the TSCP data structures.

4) If you consider it, you can ban me from the Forum. Justifying Blass posts doesn't make sense to me. You rule because you are moderator. It is not the first time that I see things like this in this forum. Nothing that I can do.

[Adam Hair]

1) I did not choose to be offended but to prove that Blass declares wrong things to justify his engine.

2) I know Richard would not waste time with Blass as I did now.

3) Blass began from TSCP and he declared that many timew and how he was not able to make progress.

4) I don't have to apologize to Blass. It is him who has to apologize to Richard instead.

5) You can ban me from the Forum if you consider it. There is no much useful that I can find from the Blass posts...

Last time, Arturo. I have received more than one complaint from members about you attacking Uri. It is uncalled for. Uri has not attacked or lied about Richard. He defended his own engine by noting that Richard started with TSCP. He has not said that The Baron is a derivative. Nor has he said that Movei is a derivative. That is your claim, and you keep choosing to make it without a proof. That can be considered libel.

I have no desire to ban you from the forum. But you are being unnecessarily aggressive.

1) Blass defends using the arguments of another engine, what is despictable.

So it is despicable to speak up and say "Why I am being excluded when this person did something similar and is not excluded?"

2) Libel is what he did to justify his engine. I will never agree wih that.

Where has Uri committed libel against Richard? Certainly not in the post that you first responded to.

3) That is a proof: He began from TSCP and he lasted for years trying unsucessfuly to improve the TSCP data structures.

You have not offered one shred of proof for this charge. I am asking for you to do it. If you make no attempt, then your repeated accusations can be considered libel.

4) If you consider it, you can ban me from the Forum. Justifying Blass posts doesn't make sense to me. You rule because you are moderator. It is not the first time that I see things like this in this forum. Nothing that I can do.

I am not justifying Uri's posts. I have been looking at Uri's posts and at Richard's words on the subject, and from that I judge that you have been over-reacting.