Why don't strong engines enter WCCC?

[hgm]

Thanks for your replay!

Ok...it's enough to talk about HGM, I think I gave him good lessons ))

To be honest,
I am already accustomed...almost all of my chess activity are trying to be underestimated or attacked

But as we see, they can't...probably due to: the good always wins !! ))

But however,
I forgive all of them...everybody can make mistakes...
And If I have any mistakes: I say SORRY to all

And when I stated, If Rybka will be counted as clone,
I was not meaning especially only Stockfish, more than 80%-90% of the rest engines should be counted in that group too !!!
Simply because it's very very hard to find 100% original work...almost all engines are bloody to each other...
We should be very nave to if we can not see the reality...
Many many chess engines contain same opening code, just is needed the engines top be tested without books
Even I don't want to talk about similarities, ponder hits etc...

And once more I say:
Stockfish, Rybka, Komodo, Houdini etc...are not 100% original, but they belong to the most original engines!
Those mentioned engines include better original ideas than all
That's why the above top engines were rated as 'number one' in many rating list...!!

That's all from me and hope helps!


Best,
Sedat

I must have misunderstood you when you said you were not a comedian!

[mar]

There are people who tend to embarass themselves the more they talk. I really think someone should stop here (or be banned for his own good) before he does even more damage to himself (friendly advice; hint: i'm not talking about hgm)

[Uri Blass]

I think that it was better not to be more polite but
I also agree with the main point that is objection to your confidence about some things

Note that I do not claim that rybka is a derivative but I also do not claim to be sure that it is not a derivative and in case that my opinion is wrong by some definition of derivative(and it may be a grey area) and rybka is a derivative of fruit then I do not see how it means that stockfish is a derivative of something(when of course I do not include old stockfish or glaurung)

Thanks for your replay!

Ok...it's enough to talk about HGM, I think I gave him good lessons ))

To be honest,
I am already accustomed...almost all of my chess activity are trying to be underestimated or attacked

But as we see, they can't...probably due to: the good always wins !! ))

But however,
I forgive all of them...everybody can make mistakes...
And If I have any mistakes: I say SORRY to all

And when I stated, If Rybka will be counted as clone,
I was not meaning especially only Stockfish, more than 80%-90% of the rest engines should be counted in that group too !!!
Simply because it's very very hard to find 100% original work...almost all engines are bloody to each other...
We should be very nave to if we can not see the reality...
Many many chess engines contain same opening code, just is needed the engines top be tested without books
Even I don't want to talk about similarities, ponder hits etc...

And once more I say:
Stockfish, Rybka, Komodo, Houdini etc...are not 100% original, but they belong to the most original engines!
Those mentioned engines include better original ideas than all
That's why the above top engines were rated as 'number one' in many rating list...!!

That's all from me and hope helps!


Best,
Sedat

This post also include things that H.G.Muller probably does not like because it seems that you insist on using the word clones not in the normal meaning or the word code not in the normal meaning.

Programs can share the same code and play different moves.
It is also possible that they have original code and play often the same moves.

I see no evidence that chess engines contain same opening code.

If you mean by opening code to opening books then
I do not consider opening books to be part of the engine
and of course opening book can include the same moves that strong players already played so they may have often the same moves
even if the authors did not copy.

If you mean by opening code to code that help engines to play the opening without book then of course engines use similar ideas but it does not mean the same code even if many engines play 1.e4 or 1.d4 without book.

Uri

[Sedat Canbaz]

This post also include things that H.G.Muller probably does not like because it seems that you insist on using the word clones not in the normal meaning or the word code not in the normal meaning.

Programs can share the same code and play different moves.
It is also possible that they have original code and play often the same moves.

I see no evidence that chess engines contain same opening code.

If you mean by opening code to opening books then
I do not consider opening books to be part of the engine
and of course opening book can include the same moves that strong players already played so they may have often the same moves
even if the authors did not copy.

If you mean by opening code to code that help engines to play the opening without book then of course engines use similar ideas but it does not mean the same code even if many engines play 1.e4 or 1.d4 without book.

Uri

First of all,
I don't care at all, what will think hgm about my postings, he will like or not...

About the current issue,
I am meaning simply that many engines have same or similar related opening-code
To see that I am right or wrong, we should test the engines without opening books
Of course, I can be wrong with the percentage, maybe 50% or 60% etc ...
But definitely, many engines use or share same/similar related opening code
And I don't see nothing wrong with that...because we use external opening books
In other words, this is not a problem...

But it makes me really very sad and it will be big injustice,
If we say only Rybka is a clone and all other rest engines are 100% original work
In this case, I say again: It will be very very hard to find 100% original work..!!

But however, in my view,
Almost all chess engines are original work and in the same time, based on others work too
And of course I respect all opinions, everybody has different view about originality...

Even I think the opening books are not 100 % original work (including Perfect books)
Because our books are not based 100% on own ideas...we are importing the games of others
But it's true that many book makers put many own original ideas on improving their books
And those who put better own original ideas, usually their books are at one of the top standings

Btw, if Syed Fahad's question was:
I need a advise from expert who is qualified to make any judgement at all
Then definitely I would not make any posting in this thread!

But as we see, his question is for all Talkchess members :
Why don't strong engines enter WCCC?

And once more I say SORRY (if I have any mistakes),
It seems for some, only I am the a reason of all this trouble and hgm is 100% right
But those clever guys forget one thing: I did not start firstly...
Yes...the double standard continues...Sad, but True !

Best,
Sedat

[Uri Blass]

I do not see how you get the conclusion that many engines have same or similar related opening-code

Playing often the same moves is no proof of having the same code and you cannot get conclusion about code based on playing style.

I can mention specific ideas(that are not code) that can cause engines to play similar moves in the opening.

For example:
1)encourage castling in the opening
2)encourage development of knights to the center of the board and encourage development of bishops to the center of the board.
3)encourage pawns at d4 or e4
4)do not encourage developing the queen in the opening

People may implement it by different code and get often the same moves
and you cannot say that one of them is derivative of another one based on it.

[Sedat Canbaz]

I do not see how you get the conclusion that many engines have same or similar related opening-code

Playing often the same moves is no proof of having the same code and you cannot get conclusion about code based on playing style.

I can mention specific ideas(that are not code) that can cause engines to play similar moves in the opening.

For example:
1)encourage castling in the opening
2)encourage development of knights to the center of the board and encourage development of bishops to the center of the board.
3)encourage pawns at d4 or e4
4)do not encourage developing the queen in the opening

People may implement it by different code and get often the same moves
and you cannot say that one of them is derivative of another one based on it.

I noticed this... during my testings without books

And as far as I remember,
Many of the top engines played same moves (oftenly up to 3-4 moves) even with switched colors

Of course, it depends on test conditions (time control,hardware speed etc...)
But however, I've seen almost same moves in the beginning...

Its ok...Uri
And it is not needed to go deeper and to be discussed any more
You are a engine creator, I am a engine tester, so who is right ?? ))

[Uri Blass]

I do not see how you get the conclusion that many engines have same or similar related opening-code

Playing often the same moves is no proof of having the same code and you cannot get conclusion about code based on playing style.

I can mention specific ideas(that are not code) that can cause engines to play similar moves in the opening.

For example:
1)encourage castling in the opening
2)encourage development of knights to the center of the board and encourage development of bishops to the center of the board.
3)encourage pawns at d4 or e4
4)do not encourage developing the queen in the opening

People may implement it by different code and get often the same moves
and you cannot say that one of them is derivative of another one based on it.

I noticed this... during my testings without books

And as far as I remember,
Mostly of the top engines played same moves (oftenly up to 3-4 moves) even with switched colors

Of course, it depends on test conditions (time control,hardware speed etc...)
But however, I've seen almost same moves in the beginning...

Its ok...Uri
And it is not needed to go deeper and to be discussed any more
You are a engine creator, I am a engine tester, so who is right ?? ))

You cannot get conclusion about engine code based on testing and finding that different engines play the same moves.

The only exception may be very high similarity
like stelka1.8 and rybka1 beta when the similiarity was not only in the moves but also in fail high and fail low.

In this case I understood that strelka1.8 is based on reverse engineering of rybka.

You can see my posts about that subject in the following thread
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14921

Note that usually you cannot get a strong evidence that engine A is based on engine B and playing the same moves in many opening positions is not a strong evidence because it can be explained simply by using the same common knowledge about openings in chess books and not by copying from another engine.

[Sedat Canbaz]

I do not see how you get the conclusion that many engines have same or similar related opening-code

Playing often the same moves is no proof of having the same code and you cannot get conclusion about code based on playing style.

I can mention specific ideas(that are not code) that can cause engines to play similar moves in the opening.

For example:
1)encourage castling in the opening
2)encourage development of knights to the center of the board and encourage development of bishops to the center of the board.
3)encourage pawns at d4 or e4
4)do not encourage developing the queen in the opening

People may implement it by different code and get often the same moves
and you cannot say that one of them is derivative of another one based on it.

I noticed this... during my testings without books

And as far as I remember,
Mostly of the top engines played same moves (oftenly up to 3-4 moves) even with switched colors

Of course, it depends on test conditions (time control,hardware speed etc...)
But however, I've seen almost same moves in the beginning...

Its ok...Uri
And it is not needed to go deeper and to be discussed any more
You are a engine creator, I am a engine tester, so who is right ?? ))

You cannot get conclusion about engine code based on testing and finding that different engines play the same moves.

The only exception may be very high similarity
like stelka1.8 and rybka1 beta when the similiarity was not only in the moves but also in fail high and fail low.

In this case I understood that strelka1.8 is based on reverse engineering of rybka.

You can see my posts about that subject in the following thread
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14921

Note that usually you cannot get a strong evidence that engine A is based on engine B and playing the same moves in many opening positions is not a strong evidence because it can be explained simply by using the same common knowledge about openings in chess books and not by copying from another engine.

Thanks for the useful info!

I will read you posts....

[gerold]

3. Ever since Rybka was banned for being an unacknowledged derivative of Fruit, you've seen less participation. ICGA has just recently been also investigating past participants Thinker and Loop. I think closed-source engine authors don't want to have that level of scrutiny and potential controversy.
--Jon

exactly...
+1

Plus 2.

[hgm]

What makes this argument pretty weak is that "ever since" apparently just means "on one single occasion, when it was in Japan", and that it is the open-source programs (Stockfish, Ippo-derivartives) that are most sorely missed by those complaining about participation. And Don Dailey was never afraid to have Komodo scrutinized, as his participation in CCT and subsequent examination of his source code have demonstrated.

No amount of plusses is going to change those facts, and no amount of plusses will make a false statement correct...