Stockfish 1.4, the final weapon

[zamar]

There may yet be hope of a compromise.

Sorry, but AFAIK, you never wrote a single of code for Stockfish. So you are not in a position to negotiate. And without negotiations there is no chance for compromise.

[Christopher Conkie]

There may yet be hope of a compromise.

Sorry, but AFAIK, you never wrote a single of code for Stockfish. So you are not in a position to negotiate. And without negotiations there is no chance for compromise.

Well you wrote one or two.......so I suppose that makes you an "author".



Christopher

[mclane]

So why does it need a new name?

All that remains is for him to put it on his site, rename it accordingly and then we can all wish you good luck.

We cannot have the Fruity business again.......it's way too much hassle.

Christopher

isn't the decision about the name something that belongs to the programmers who worked on it ?

Or are others allowed to tell the programmers which name they have to give their own program ?

[mcostalba]

You should be happy to work on a program called Glaurung.

And you ? what are you happy of ?

How can I take seriously someone whom targets are far less then clear and trasparent in a matter that is absolutely far away from his business ?

Try to post the reason why you are doing this campaign...so at least we do a big laugh in this, until now, obnoxious afternoon.

[Tord Romstad]

Yes, I view Stockfish as a positive step in the development and evolution of Glaurung. On his own, I think Tord pretty much stated that there would be no new versions of Glaurung itself and he had stopped work on it. Now there is a team of people working on it to move it forward and improve it, and that is a good thing and has actually kept Tord on board as well.

Yes, this is a pretty accurate description.

There seems to be some confusion and misunderstandings about Glaurung/Stockfish floating around, so perhaps it's a good idea to make some clarifications.

Marco's first version of Stockfish was released some time between Glaurung 2.1 and 2.2, and was based on Glaurung 2.1. For quite a while later, we both kept working on our separate branches, but we stayed in touch occasionally and exchanged development versions of our programs, and copied code and ideas between them. Even though Stockfish describes itself as "derived from Glaurung 2.1", you will find code from Glaurung 2.2 and the even newer iPhone Glaurung in Stockfish as well. Similarly, you will find traces of Stockfish in the public iPhone Glaurung.

In the long run, this seemed like a stupid and inefficient way to work. Why not work together directly on the same source code rather than manually trying to merge parts of the two gradually diverging programs every few months? Moreover, adapting code from one branch to the other became more complicated over time, because contrary to what some people seem to believe, Marco's changes in Stockfish amount to far more than changing a few numbers.

That's why we're now working together. Some people have questioned the name. The argument that we should rename the program back to Glaurung carries some weight, but I would personally prefer to keep the name Stockfish, partly because it's an awesome name, and partly because our joint effort is based on Marco's branch rather than my own branch (an obvious choice, because Stockfish was by far the more advanced branch at the time), and because Marco is currently the most active developer. This being said, I have no very strong feelings about the name. If Joona and Marco want it, I have no problems accepting the majority decision and release the next version as Glaurung 2.3 rather than Stockfish 1.5.

At any rate, Stockfish currently shouldn't be regarded as a "Glaurung derivative" (even though it started as such), but as Glaurung's successor or the current version of Glaurung. It is, after all, the only branch that the original author is actively working on. Those of you who prefer to keep using Glaurung 2.2 on your rating lists are of course free to do so, but in my opinion that makes about as much sense as staying with Glaurung 2.1. It remains possible that I will some day have to write a new program from the ground up, but if that happens, I consider it most likely that it will be co-authored with Joona and Marco, and be released as Stockfish 2 rather than as Glaurung 3.

Someone mentioned that Stockfish should be available for download from my web site: Of course I agree entirely, and I have been thinking that for months. I'm awfully slow and lazy with regard to updating my web site, which is now extremely outdated in several ways.

Finally, for questions about how many % of the code each of us has written: It's difficult to quantify, and who cares? None of us have been making claims like "I did X% of the work".

I received a personal message from Steve this morning that the thread from yesterday night was deleted after it degenerated into a flamefight. I think I slept through most of the flames, but I hope we can avoid the same thing happening again. After all, we are arguing about a name. Surely the name of a chess engine cannot be worth fighting about?

[zamar]

Well you wrote one or two.......so I suppose that makes you an "author".

Well, to be honest, I'm not really sure I deserve that credit My contributions to Stockfish sum up somewhere between 20-40 elo points (but Marco helped me a lot in some key things).

But anyway, counting lines is a very wrong way to measure contribution. More lines usually means only more mess.

[Christopher Conkie]

So why does it need a new name?

All that remains is for him to put it on his site, rename it accordingly and then we can all wish you good luck.

We cannot have the Fruity business again.......it's way too much hassle.

Christopher

isn't the decision about the name something that belongs to the programmers who worked on it ?

Or are others allowed to tell the programmers which name they have to give their own program ?

Tord did not name Stockfish. It is Glaurung 2.7 here.

[zamar]

Tord did not name Stockfish. It is Glaurung 2.7 here.

Really?

And how about Stockrung 2.4 or Glaufish 1.7 Would you agree with those?

[Christopher Conkie]

This being said, I have no very strong feelings about the name. If Joona and Marco want it, I have no problems accepting the majority decision and release the next version as Glaurung 2.3 rather than Stockfish 1.5.

OK. this sounds better. And then when you rewrite......

It remains possible that I will some day have to write a new program from the ground up, but if that happens, I consider it most likely that it will be co-authored with Joona and Marco, and be released as Stockfish 2 rather than as Glaurung 3.

If it is a complete rewrite which you have done before I do not doubt you would wish to rename Glaurung to something different (maybe even Stockfish).

The only thing I would question is the actual number which appears to be currently 2.7 if we count Stockfish 1.0 as Glaurung 2.3.

You can understand a tournament directors point of view if you take it to the extreme.

Imagine if every release of Tytan, Crafty or Rybka had been called a different name with every minor release.

Christopher

[Christopher Conkie]

Tord did not name Stockfish. It is Glaurung 2.7 here.

Really?

And how about Stockrung 2.4 or Glaufish 1.7 Would you agree with those?

No. I only agree with calling the current Stockfish........Glaurung. Why? Because that is what it is. You can see although that Tord says if there was a rewrite he would like to call it Stockfish.

Look at it this way. You could pick a different line to change....or two.....



Christopher