Uri Blass wrote: Sedat Canbaz wrote:
I published SCCT Scratch Rating (a few minutes ago):
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!
I see that the baron is included in the scratch engines.
Note that I read that the baron started from 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!
There is absolutely no reason to attack Uri. He is just providing a link to the chess programming wiki. In that page, it says nothing wrong about The Baron, in fact, it mentions it was a LEGAL derivative. In addition, it seems to be correct. It would be rare to see something crazy wrong there (Gerd seems to be quite thorough) so I googled.
Richard himself acknowledged TSCP for the initial old Baron (which was completely rewritten IIRC)
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
I used ideas already implemented in other chess programs when writing my own chess
engine. The starting point was one of the smallest chess programs around: Tom's Simple
Chess Program version 1.73.
I would like to thank Tom Kerrigan for making the source of the program available.
Although all of Tom's original code has gone now, it gave me the opportunity
to quickly build a working program.
Current Baron must have zero lines from TSCP and there nothing wrong with it. Quoting Anthony Cozzie (googled from the winboard forum)
" If someone wants to create an engine with Glaurung as a base, I don't see why that is a problem, as long as they specifically note this on its webpage/credits/whatever. I know The Baron originally started out as TSCP; no one thinks any less of Richard for doing this. "
http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewt ... TSCP#p3535
Having said that, Sedat has a criteria for his own tournament. He is not placing guilt or an ethical concerns, if I understand well. If he were, it would be a complete different story. As an example, he may not include Crafty because it is a continuation of Cray Blitz. He is not saying Bob is cloning himself. Some people have tournaments based on the language spoken by the author, the country, or whatever. Sedat may not include some engine if at one point a template was used, regardless of legitimacy.
These are topics in which people get really touchy, I understand that and the reasons for it, but in this thread nobody accused anybody of anything. I hope this won't turn into anything that would start offending people.