Fire 5 is out!

[velmarin]

Sir, stop making negative judgmental assumptions about what other people created... by judging everything, you are learning nothing.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62144

Thread is open in origins of the engine, along with the evidence, you can read it and get an idea.

Fire 5 is an engine from the Stockfish code, no doubt.

[kranium]

Sir, stop making negative judgmental assumptions about what other people created... by judging everything, you are learning nothing.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62144

Thread is open in origins of the engine, along with the evidence, you can read it and get an idea.

Fire 5 is an engine from the Stockfish code, no doubt.

Stop making it out to be much more than it is...

Fire is not 'from Stockfish code, no doubt'.
That can easily be ascertained by using the sim tool, or running the 2 engines side by side.
For any slight similarity there are hundreds of distinct differences, especially concerning eval, move choice, depth, analysis, PV, etc. In addition SF is probably at least 200 ELO stronger.

Concerning the 'Sim' tool, I ran it several times since your post and I regularly get 50% (even better than your 52).
This is quite a good number for any engine, I'm happy with it...I 'm sure there are engines with similar or higher results.

If Fire is more similar now to SF than 2 years ago, this can also be seen as a fairly natural occurrence, as most everyone (IMO) is learning, using, and implementing some or all of it's techniques.

[velmarin]

You simply changed the parameters of Stockfish and obfuscated everything to do that looks like another engine.
but always something happens and the evidence is in origins of the engine.

with respect to tool SIM, I just did a simple test that showed his lie.
You can be more aggressive with the tool and find its falsehood.

[gerold]

Sir, stop making negative judgmental assumptions about what other people created... by judging everything, you are learning nothing.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62144

Thread is open in origins of the engine, along with the evidence, you can read it and get an idea.

Fire 5 is an engine from the Stockfish code, no doubt.

Stop making it out to be much more than it is...

Fire is not 'from Stockfish code, no doubt'.
That can easily be ascertained by using the sim tool, or running the 2 engines side by side.
For any slight similarity there are hundreds of distinct differences, especially concerning eval, move choice, depth, analysis, PV, etc. In addition SF is probably at least 200 ELO stronger.

Concerning the 'Sim' tool, I ran it several times since your post and I regularly get 50% (even better than your 52).
This is quite a good number for any engine, I'm happy with it...I 'm sure there are engines with similar or higher results.

If Fire is more similar now to SF than 2 years ago, this can also be seen as a fairly natural occurrence, as most everyone (IMO) is learning, using, and implementing some or all of it's techniques.

LOL

[velmarin]

LOL

You applaud the lie...
LOL,LOL

[gerold]

LOL

You applaud the lie...
LOL,LOL

I laugh at fire as being an original engine. (NOT)
ITs a clone just like most of the top rated engines of today.

[Modern Times]

Thanks for the new version, chess960 support is back and working fine so far

[velmarin]

Thanks for the new version, chess960 support is back and working fine so far

Clear, same as Stockfish.


All the options and how to put them to the user, like Stockfish,
but this is no accident.
What does not change is when we move personal sympathies.
We forget that someone, in a time given, wanted to sell a program that not its owner...
that is serious.
But if Stockfish, chess 960, Fire 5 works.
How Contempt, how options Syzygy, coincidence 100/100?

Code: Select all

name Contempt option type default spin 0 min - max 100 100
option name Ponder type check default false
option name UCI_Chess960 type check default false
option name Syzygy50MoveRule type check default true
option name SyzygyPath type string default <empty>
option name SyzygyProbeDepth type spin default 8 min 1 max 64
option name SyzygyProbeLimit type spin default 6 min 0 max 6,

[Modern Times]

Komodo has all those same UCI options, as do other programs. I'm not interested in what you have to say about it.

[Dan Cooper]

A consistent naming convention for UCI options makes sense to me. Fire 4 used to have TBPath and has now adjusted it to SyzygyPath to be in line with every other Syzygy capable engine I know about.