TCEC - Is it okay to have a derivative program as champion?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Mark,

main problem ...
Often it's not easy to select out "same" engines.

If I am looking on playing styles I find out that different programs have maybe the same style but in further analyzes of key positions I collect ... the results are quiet differently!

With the TOP-50 of my list I am very pleased concerning ... I am using really different engines. OK, I know that 4 of the engines in my TOP-50 have important parts and main knowledge from others. Most of my knowledge here I found here in TalkChess or programmers gave the information to me.

I gave up to make me further thoughts.
It's to complicated for myself but I try my best to added completly different engines in the group I am using for my FCP Rating List.

Fact is ...
We have really many very strong and interesting engines, never we have in the years before. So many programmers do here a great job and since the IPP topic computer chess today is much more interesting.

Programs like yours are a perfectly motivation for all others and the results is that many of the TOP-50 programmers have more fun on the fight for the places if they can see what`s possible today.

And I have a lot of fun too, more as for 3-5 years in IPP times. Really a bad time because more as 30 IPPs are available with different names and the computer chess fora are full of blitz results from "same" engines.

This group of people are using today ... SF - Komodo ... much better and more interesting for looking (speaking from myself).

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Bob,

the reason why I like Crafty.

Never Crafty lost his own style and step by step your engine is stronger in all the years.

That's more important as 100 or 200 Elo more with ideas comes from others. Sure, main ideas ... good for improvements should be used but I like it if programmers try to connect such ideas with his own.

If programmers have the courage to write ... for an example ... I am using an idea comes from Stockfish dev. or other open source engines ... I like it too. So I know the programmer is working with open cards.

That is the deal open source programmers give to others. But it must be to see in the readme.

Keep up your good work ... I hope for the next 100 years.

Best
Frank

[corres]

[quote="mjlef"].... For the Gull and Stockfish clones, they seem to have just modified the name in the source code and recompiled.[/quote]
These are no derivatives but copies or clones as you likes.

[Rochester]

TCEC: Is it okay to have a derivative program as champion?

I say Yes!

Crafty is the derivative of "Cray Blitz", a computer chess program that itself was derived from "Blitz" a program I started to work on as an undergraduate.

http://www.craftychess.com/hyatt/hyatt.html

[corres]

[quote="corres"]From 1950's all engines are derivative.[/quote]
There would be not an issue of the origin of chess programs if all programs have to be open source and their source can be compiled. But the interest of money and the human enviousness prevents the spreading of the idea of open source.

[corres]

[quote="mjlef"]
Courts decide legalities. But tournament runners want to play fair. Lets say I made 100 versions of Komodo, each with a tiny change which might modify the playing strength by say 1 elo. I enter all 100 copies in TCEC under different names. If they all play against 1 Stockfish, then one of my clones has a much greater chance of winning than the single Stockfish. Some will do better than others. And that would be unfair. So tournament runners need to keep this from happening, whether the clone is legal or not. In past World Microcomputer Championships, both Fidelity and Mephisto actually entered identical copies to increase winning chances (they did not hide this fact, and it was fine by the rules at the time).
[/quote]


One author - one program and the issue is solved.

[Dirt]

From 1950's all engines are derivative.

There would be not an issue of the origin of chess programs if all programs have to be open source and their source can be compiled. But the interest of money and the human enviousness prevents the spreading of the idea of open source.

I see your post uses the quote and /quote BBCode instructions, but they don't display properly. There is a setting in your profile that controls this, although I'm not certain that's the cause of your problem.

[corres]

[quote="Frank Quisinsky"]Hi Mark,

main problem ...
Often it's not easy to select out "same" engines.

If I am looking on playing styles I find out that different programs have maybe the same style but in further analyzes of key positions I collect ... the results are quiet differently!

With the TOP-50 of my list I am very pleased concerning ... I am using really different engines. OK, I know that 4 of the engines in my TOP-50 have important parts and main knowledge from others. Most of my knowledge here I found here in TalkChess or programmers gave the information to me.

I gave up to make me further thoughts.
It's to complicated for myself but I try my best to added completly different engines in the group I am using for my FCP Rating List.

Fact is ...
We have really many very strong and interesting engines, never we have in the years before. So many programmers do here a great job and since the IPP topic computer chess today is much more interesting.

Programs like yours are a perfectly motivation for all others and the results is that many of the TOP-50 programmers have more fun on the fight for the places if they can see what`s possible today.

And I have a lot of fun too, more as for 3-5 years in IPP times. Really a bad time because more as 30 IPPs are available with different names and the computer chess fora are full of blitz results from "same" engines.

This group of people are using today ... SF - Komodo ... much better and more interesting for looking (speaking from myself).

Best
Frank[/quote]

Mr. Quisinsky,
I suppose you to start a championship for the engines of open source only.
Let's be the main rules for participants as follows:
1, One author - one source of his engine
2, All authors have to give the origin of his source
3, The source of the engine entered can be compiled by expert who help you and these binary will be participated in the race.
4, The authors have to give at least one new idea, new trick, new balancing, new etc.. which differs from the originate source. The difference must be essential to the power of that engine.
These conditions mainly arise from the term of technical innovation.
I think that the turmoil around source codes is originated from the operative rules which stands parallel the activity of programing to writing a novel (for e.g.) and not to other technical doing.

[corres]

[quote="Dirt"][quote="corres"][quote="corres"]From 1950's all engines are derivative.[/quote]
There would be not an issue of the origin of chess programs if all programs have to be open source and their source can be compiled. But the interest of money and the human enviousness prevents the spreading of the idea of open source.[/quote]
I see your post uses the quote and /quote BBCode instructions, but they don't display properly. There is a setting in your profile that controls this, although I'm not certain that's the cause of your problem.[/quote]

Have you any other fundamental note?
I like to know your opinion about derivative, copy, clone, open source, etc.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Robert,

often I am thinking to start a much more easy rating list!
But for the moment I have really enough from such a work.

I have more interest to help John Stanback next year and to work on stronger and stronger equal opening books (for Cutechess, Shredder and Wasp).

But of course ... in testing Wasp I need a group of interesting opponents, thinking on 20 engines with completly different styles and still in developement. Will not see again and again Spike, Zappa, Sjeng and other strong but older engines.

By the way ... your ideas are good in my opinion!

Best
Frank