Naum is the next one....

[Uri Blass]

....to be accused of stealing Rybka's code as I expect it to add a respectful amount of ELOs with it's next release....
Just wait and see....
Dr.D

Hi Dr.D,
are you going to replace Christopher Conkie here on the forum ?

I am quite sure you are not right!!!

Shredder and Stockfish has been accused so far,no
Why do you think that Naum will make an exception

Taking ideas even if the claim is wrong is not an accusation.
Accusation is only about taking code.

The real test of accusing a programmer of stealing or of doing something illegal is
1)CEGT or CCRL refuse to test
2)rybka forum forbid to mention the name of the program.

This did not happen to shredder or stockfish and I do not expect it to happen for Naum.

I saw more accusation against Rybka of stealing fruit's code than accusation against Shredder and Stockfish because
I can mention names of people who claim that rybka beta took fruit's code and I can mention no name of a person who claims that Shredder or Stockfish is using Rybka's code(and remember that we talk about code and not about ideas).

Uri

[Edsel Apostol]

....to be accused of stealing Rybka's code as I expect it to add a respectful amount of ELOs with it's next release....
Just wait and see....
Dr.D

Hi Dr.D,
are you going to replace Christopher Conkie here on the forum ?

I am quite sure you are not right!!!

Shredder and Stockfish has been accused so far,no
Why do you think that Naum will make an exception

Taking ideas even if the claim is wrong is not an accusation.
Accusation is only about taking code.

The real test of accusing a programmer of stealing or of doing something illegal is
1)CEGT or CCRL refuse to test
2)rybka forum forbid to mention the name of the program.

This did not happen to shredder or stockfish and I do not expect it to happen for Naum.

I saw more accusation against Rybka of stealing fruit's code than accusation against Shredder and Stockfish because
I can mention names of people who claim that rybka beta took fruit's code and I can mention no name of a person who claims that Shredder or Stockfish is using Rybka's code(and remember that we talk about code and not about ideas).

Uri

The statement in bold is simply wrong. It doesn't mean that if CEGT and CCRL doesn't test it yet that it already is illegal. It might be that the testers are just cautious and they doesn't want to spend their precious CPU time on something that has issues yet to resolve. A suspicion that it is a clone without concrete evidence doesn't make it illegal.

At point number 2, how could you be sure that the decision on Rybka forum to forbid the mention of the name of the program is not based on protecting their business but based on factual data backed by concrete proof? Do they already have concrete proof?

I am neutral on the cloning issue, I just want to point out the flaw in the logic of that statement.

[Uri Blass]

....to be accused of stealing Rybka's code as I expect it to add a respectful amount of ELOs with it's next release....
Just wait and see....
Dr.D

Hi Dr.D,
are you going to replace Christopher Conkie here on the forum ?

I am quite sure you are not right!!!

Shredder and Stockfish has been accused so far,no
Why do you think that Naum will make an exception

Taking ideas even if the claim is wrong is not an accusation.
Accusation is only about taking code.

The real test of accusing a programmer of stealing or of doing something illegal is
1)CEGT or CCRL refuse to test
2)rybka forum forbid to mention the name of the program.

This did not happen to shredder or stockfish and I do not expect it to happen for Naum.

I saw more accusation against Rybka of stealing fruit's code than accusation against Shredder and Stockfish because
I can mention names of people who claim that rybka beta took fruit's code and I can mention no name of a person who claims that Shredder or Stockfish is using Rybka's code(and remember that we talk about code and not about ideas).

Uri

The statement in bold is simply wrong. It doesn't mean that if CEGT and CCRL doesn't test it yet that it already is illegal. It might be that the testers are just cautious and they doesn't want to spend their precious CPU time on something that has issues yet to resolve. A suspicion that it is a clone without concrete evidence doesn't make it illegal.

At point number 2, how could you be sure that the decision on Rybka forum to forbid the mention of the name of the program is not based on protecting their business but based on factual data backed by concrete proof? Do they already have concrete proof?

I am neutral on the cloning issue, I just want to point out the flaw in the logic of that statement.

I am going to make my point more clear.

When I write
"The real test of accusing a programmer of stealing or of doing something illegal is"

I do not mean that the programmer is quilty but only that there is a serious suspect.

I did not see a serious suspect against shredder or stockfish so I see no reason to talk about future suspect against Naum.

Uri

[Edsel Apostol]

....to be accused of stealing Rybka's code as I expect it to add a respectful amount of ELOs with it's next release....
Just wait and see....
Dr.D

Hi Dr.D,
are you going to replace Christopher Conkie here on the forum ?

I am quite sure you are not right!!!

Shredder and Stockfish has been accused so far,no
Why do you think that Naum will make an exception

Taking ideas even if the claim is wrong is not an accusation.
Accusation is only about taking code.

The real test of accusing a programmer of stealing or of doing something illegal is
1)CEGT or CCRL refuse to test
2)rybka forum forbid to mention the name of the program.

This did not happen to shredder or stockfish and I do not expect it to happen for Naum.

I saw more accusation against Rybka of stealing fruit's code than accusation against Shredder and Stockfish because
I can mention names of people who claim that rybka beta took fruit's code and I can mention no name of a person who claims that Shredder or Stockfish is using Rybka's code(and remember that we talk about code and not about ideas).

Uri

The statement in bold is simply wrong. It doesn't mean that if CEGT and CCRL doesn't test it yet that it already is illegal. It might be that the testers are just cautious and they doesn't want to spend their precious CPU time on something that has issues yet to resolve. A suspicion that it is a clone without concrete evidence doesn't make it illegal.

At point number 2, how could you be sure that the decision on Rybka forum to forbid the mention of the name of the program is not based on protecting their business but based on factual data backed by concrete proof? Do they already have concrete proof?

I am neutral on the cloning issue, I just want to point out the flaw in the logic of that statement.

I am going to make my point more clear.

When I write
"The real test of accusing a programmer of stealing or of doing something illegal is"

I do not mean that the programmer is quilty but only that there is a serious suspect.

I did not see a serious suspect against shredder or stockfish so I see no reason to talk about future suspect against Naum.

Uri

OK, I get your point.

[tano-urayoan]

Please guys, spare me
Naum 4.1 will be a small bug fix release with absolutely no new code added. I still hope that those fixes and tune ups will add some elo, but don't expect a huge jump. I may also release a 4.2 which will be optimized for 64-bit computers. So there will be no Robbo, Ipo, etc. 'inspired' improvements.
I am doing this for pleasure only during my idle time at work. Don't care about the competitive or commercial side any more since they are dead. Today, any idiot with a computer and compiler can make a Rybka strength engine. I will take my hat off only to those who manage to create an engine that's at least 50 elo stronger then the strongest open source engine, or to those who release their strong engine as open source.
Despite all the fuss, I'm amazed at what these people accomplished with Robbo. I trust Vas when he says it has parts of Rybka in it, but it obviously isn't a pure clone. At least not of the Rybka 3.
For the first time I also took a look at Stockfish. Beautifully written and as original as a comp chess program can be. Great job guys.

Nice to hear from you Alex. Take care.

Cheers,
Graham.

You do not comment about the statement in bold?

[Sylwy]

Shredder and Stockfish has been accused so far,no
Why do you think that Naum will make an exception

Hi Doc !

Alex Naumov is a genius in chess engines programming ! Naum was the single chess engine very close in strength with Rybka from years !
And......................Alex is a very nice and honest man !

Silvian

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Graham,

yes, interesting what Aleksander wrote.

Have a look in the details.

... 4 years after the latest official Fruit 05/11/03 version ....

Compare Fruit 05/11/03 with clones today without x64 and multiprocessing.

The results:

Cyclone xTreme / Protector 1.32 around 30 ELO stronger
perhaps the strongest Toga version too ... I think 1.42 JD
If Rybka 1.2 is also a clone of Fruit, Rybka is 40 ELO stronger.
Aha, Vas found a little bit more a little bit faster as others

Between Rybka 1.2 and 2.3.2a 75 ELO and between 2.3.2a and Rybka 3 around 100 ELO = 175 ELO. Seems to be genials ideas to be included in the latest Rybkas !!

Today it seems its possible its more easy to create a chess program with the playing strength of Fruit because the ideas are known.

If the ideas from Rybka 3 are known the engine would be around 200 ELO stronger as Fruit ... and in 4 years the clones would be not more as 30 ELO stronger as the original.

All is the same but the playing style would be an other (look in Cyclone and Protector and compare it with Fruit). Completly other an very interesting playing style.

Aleksander wrote:
"Today, any idiot with a computer and compiler can make a Rybka strength engine. I will take my hat off only to those who manage to create an engine that's at least 50 elo stronger then the strongest open source engine"

50 ELO more is not possible for cloners without own great ideas. We can it see easy in Fruit and Clones.

Aleksander made the point !!!
Bob too, Robert wrote in one of the messages to the topic that a clone of an chess program will be never 30 ELO stronger as the original (hope I understand it correct). Same opinion as non programmer with knowledge in eng-eng looking

Best
Frank

[mcostalba]

Today, any idiot with a computer and compiler can make a Rybka strength engine

I agree 100%

Apart for the word idiot that I don't feel correct, I fully agree that today if you want to claim something regarding new achievements in computer chess you have to release something stronger then Robbo, and so, something stronger then Rybka 3. Otherwise it simply means that you have not understood why Robbo works so well.

I want also to add that I think focusing on ELO strength only has become very misleading at today times, and if you are (or wanna be) a commercial it is even more misleading because in my opinion as an user and not as a programmer I think you have to give some value added that is not just an ELO number: a GUI environment, a special playing style, something that makes you engine attractive but not because it is strong but because it is "special" in a different way from the others.

I am not from a long time in this community, but I think this is a new thing and is the main consequence of the availability of sources of top strength engines.

I am also very sure that this is a good thing because after that this new view will be assimilated, and I agree will not be easy especially for people that has always thought in a single way, this will spread new possibilities and new ideas to make even more attractive this world.

Thinking that a good engine is an engine with very high ELO is no more true today. High ELO is just legacy in 2010.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Shredder and Stockfish has been accused so far,no
Why do you think that Naum will make an exception

Hi Doc !

Alex Naumov is a genius in chess engines programming ! Naum was the single chess engine very close in strength with Rybka from years !
And......................Alex is a very nice and honest man !

Silvian

Hi Silvian,
Totaly agreed my friend
Dr.D