TalkChess.com

dannyb wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:19 am

Graham Banks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:10 am

Modern Times wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:01 am

carldaman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:11 am Also, it could be worth noting that Ginkgo had been listed on CCRl 40/40 as a private engine, but then it was
pulled from the list just around the same time as the Fritz 17 discussion first sprang up.

I don't know why that was, I wouldn't read anything into it. Graham asked for it to be removed and it was. They were his games. I'm not sure why it was there at all, we don't have private engines on the 40/40 list.

I wanted to see its CCRL rating.

which was ............ ?

just to get an idea about this new Fritz

Ginkgo 2.18 64-bit was just above the latest Andscacs, but the latest Ginkgo version is likely to be stronger than that.

Graham Banks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:43 am
Ginkgo 2.18 64-bit was just above the latest Andscacs, but the latest Ginkgo version is likely to be stronger than that.

thanks Graham

Ozymandias wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:07 am

dkappe wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:11 pm

Ozymandias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:57 pm
I don't know if that's "expert" enough for you, but I never wanted to be taken for one. There's a lot of those running around, I just try to bring some common sense into the conversation, something which isn't in so much abundance nowadays.

Common sense? You’re clearly not a lawyer (insert obligatory lawyer joke here).

Having developed commercial software for a living for a variety of clients, I’ve sat in enough conference rooms with lawyers and entrepreneurs. Your magical thinking about the the GPL covering “everything” and being able to prevent users from conduct you deem objectionable (like distributing augmented reality porn, for example), is far from uncommon. Watching lawyers disabuse the product owner of these notions is like watching a boy pull the wings off of a butterfly.

You're right, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a philosopher, and language is of some interest to me. That's why, when you write something like the phrase I originally quoted, I feel compelled to ask for some clarification. If your answer is that this is the legality of the situation, I can only say that the inclusion of the word "legally" would've avoided confusion.

As for my ideas about GPL, I only know about it what I read in forums. I certainly don't think they would fit under that particular umbrella, then again, maybe the people who posted about it did, so some of the "magic" could've trickled down.

Even philosophically your argument holds no water. Cutechess is an open source GUI that is utterly useless without an engine to run in it, much less one that is provided for in the GPL. If someone sells an engine, an engine that is entirely useless without an interface, by your statement that engine is 'covered' by the GPL now if the engine author provides the free interface in his package.

Likewise, let us suppose I have generated a new super special opening book that can only be used in SCID. I don't know if SCID is covered by the GPL, but for argument's sake let's assume it is. And furthermore, I created this opening book within SCID. SCID is free, but my opening book is not, but by your argument my privately created book is somehow free for all "philosophically" because of the GPL? The examples just abound, and I have only stuck to chess software here.

If Ginkgo is the new Fritz then those are great news, from what I can tell it's a strong engine with an unique style that I've never been able to run around here

I just hope they provide builds that work for everyone, I'd hate if it enforced Popcount/SSE4 and it'd drive me insane if I had to run it in 32bit

Graham Banks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:10 am

Modern Times wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:01 am

carldaman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:11 am Also, it could be worth noting that Ginkgo had been listed on CCRl 40/40 as a private engine, but then it was
pulled from the list just around the same time as the Fritz 17 discussion first sprang up.

I don't know why that was, I wouldn't read anything into it. Graham asked for it to be removed and it was. They were his games. I'm not sure why it was there at all, we don't have private engines on the 40/40 list.

I wanted to see its CCRL rating.

Me too.

Thanks for including it in the list, albeit only temporarily.

The trouble with the exclusion of private engines from the list is that their games
will also be excluded from the database. I think Gingko has a different style than
most engines and I'm really hoping it does become the new Fritz.

I like the removal of private engine's games. If you go private do it all the way.

Modern Times wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:01 am

carldaman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:11 am Also, it could be worth noting that Ginkgo had been listed on CCRl 40/40 as a private engine, but then it was
pulled from the list just around the same time as the Fritz 17 discussion first sprang up.

I don't know why that was, I wouldn't read anything into it. Graham asked for it to be removed and it was. They were his games. I'm not sure why it was there at all, we don't have private engines on the 40/40 list.

Yes, it may have been just a coincidence. As to private engines, there is also RookieMonster appearing on 40/40.

carldaman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:54 amAs to private engines, there is also RookieMonster appearing on 40/40.

I include RookieMonster in my tournaments and the author always supports my broadcasts.
I believe that this encouragement might eventually lead to a public release.

Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:53 pm Even philosophically your argument holds no water. Cutechess is an open source GUI that is utterly useless without an engine to run in it, much less one that is provided for in the GPL. If someone sells an engine, an engine that is entirely useless without an interface, by your statement that engine is 'covered' by the GPL now if the engine author provides the free interface in his package.

If someone sells an engine it may be used with cutechess, fritz, etc... and it is obvious that it is not a derivative work. However, a NN that runs only inside a single GPL program, may be a derivative work.
It would be better to be less arrogant on such complex matters:
http://tormarklaw.com/new-lawsuit-targe ... tary-code/
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Ne ... re-Lawsuit

Fulvio wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:27 pm

Albert Silver wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:53 pm Even philosophically your argument holds no water. Cutechess is an open source GUI that is utterly useless without an engine to run in it, much less one that is provided for in the GPL. If someone sells an engine, an engine that is entirely useless without an interface, by your statement that engine is 'covered' by the GPL now if the engine author provides the free interface in his package.

If someone sells an engine it may be used with cutechess, fritz, etc... and it is obvious that it is not a derivative work. However, a NN that runs only inside a single GPL program, may be a derivative work.
It would be better to be less arrogant on such complex matters:
http://tormarklaw.com/new-lawsuit-targe ... tary-code/
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Ne ... re-Lawsuit

Hi Fulvio, you are wrong on numerous points, the first being that it runs in only one program. As of now, it runs in four that I know of. The links you cited do not apply here either. Also, it might be worth pointing out the NN weights is not code, it is data.