Fruit vs. Toga poll

[swami]

Amongst the authors, we have modified our definition of clone over
the last 20 years. Now, it comes down to you can reuse ideas but
not code. Also, you can not reuse all ideas. Specifically, you can
only reuse anything that is black box oriented - it produces the
same output given the same input no matter who writes the code.
This means reusing the eval is off limits as well as move ordering
and several other things.

The Toga group reused everything! They didn't just reuse ALL the ideas, they reused ALL the code as well. Also, they have not contributed a single new idea.

Then why is Toga so much stronger?

I'll add that Toga is based on Fruit 2.2.1, which is vastly different from Fruit 2.3.1 and subsequent versions (according to Ryan).
If the Toga developers haven't contributed a single idea, then why is the latest Toga almost 100 elo stronger than Fruit 2.2.1? That seems to paint Fabien as inept (which he is far from being) because some amateurs could rewrite a few lines of code and get 100 elo improvement.
If a commercial programmer could get that much improvement, they'd be selling us a new engine. In fact, some do so with far less a gain.

I thought Toga is based on Fruit 2.1.

I think Fabien could easily improve Fruit by nearly 400 elo in few months time, if were to continue with development, but he gave up chess programming completely.
He has shown time and again that he could bring 100 elo worth with each version subsequent to first Fruit version ever released. That too in few months time.
Whereas it took Toga nearly 3 years to get 100 elo (not that I'm faulting anyone, just making my point in order to support Fabien).
My point being that Fabien would improve Fruit/Toga _way_ faster than anyone else if he were continue with the development.

Lack of activity shouldn't be confused with inability to improve.

[Graham Banks]

Amongst the authors, we have modified our definition of clone over
the last 20 years. Now, it comes down to you can reuse ideas but
not code. Also, you can not reuse all ideas. Specifically, you can
only reuse anything that is black box oriented - it produces the
same output given the same input no matter who writes the code.
This means reusing the eval is off limits as well as move ordering
and several other things.

The Toga group reused everything! They didn't just reuse ALL the ideas, they reused ALL the code as well. Also, they have not contributed a single new idea.

Then why is Toga so much stronger?

I'll add that Toga is based on Fruit 2.2.1, which is vastly different from Fruit 2.3.1 and subsequent versions (according to Ryan).
If the Toga developers haven't contributed a single idea, then why is the latest Toga almost 100 elo stronger than Fruit 2.2.1? That seems to paint Fabien as inept (which he is far from being) because some amateurs could rewrite a few lines of code and get 100 elo improvement.
If a commercial programmer could get that much improvement, they'd be selling us a new engine. In fact, some do so with far less a gain.

I thought Toga is based on Fruit 2.1.

I think Fabien could easily improve Fruit by nearly 400 elo in few months time, if were to continue with development, but he gave up chess programming completely.
He has shown time and again that he could bring 100 elo worth with each version subsequent to first Fruit version ever released. That too in few months time.
Whereas it took Toga nearly 3 years to get 100 elo (not that I'm faulting anyone, just making my point in order to support Fabien).
My point being that Fabien would improve Fruit/Toga _way_ faster than anyone else if he were continue with the development.

Lack of activity shouldn't be confused with inability to improve.

You could well be correct in saying that Toga is based on Fruit 2.1. In this case, the so called "amateurs" who've "altered a few lines of code" have improved even more impressively upon Fabien's original efforts.
What Fabien might or mightn't be able to do is pure conjecture, but there's no doubting the guy's talent. He was a computer chess revolutionary, despite the anger of the anti open source brigade. It would be fantastic to see him involved in computer chess again.

[swami]

Amongst the authors, we have modified our definition of clone over
the last 20 years. Now, it comes down to you can reuse ideas but
not code. Also, you can not reuse all ideas. Specifically, you can
only reuse anything that is black box oriented - it produces the
same output given the same input no matter who writes the code.
This means reusing the eval is off limits as well as move ordering
and several other things.

The Toga group reused everything! They didn't just reuse ALL the ideas, they reused ALL the code as well. Also, they have not contributed a single new idea.

Then why is Toga so much stronger?

I'll add that Toga is based on Fruit 2.2.1, which is vastly different from Fruit 2.3.1 and subsequent versions (according to Ryan).
If the Toga developers haven't contributed a single idea, then why is the latest Toga almost 100 elo stronger than Fruit 2.2.1? That seems to paint Fabien as inept (which he is far from being) because some amateurs could rewrite a few lines of code and get 100 elo improvement.
If a commercial programmer could get that much improvement, they'd be selling us a new engine. In fact, some do so with far less a gain.

I thought Toga is based on Fruit 2.1.

I think Fabien could easily improve Fruit by nearly 400 elo in few months time, if were to continue with development, but he gave up chess programming completely.
He has shown time and again that he could bring 100 elo worth with each version subsequent to first Fruit version ever released. That too in few months time.
Whereas it took Toga nearly 3 years to get 100 elo (not that I'm faulting anyone, just making my point in order to support Fabien).
My point being that Fabien would improve Fruit/Toga _way_ faster than anyone else if he were continue with the development.

Lack of activity shouldn't be confused with inability to improve.

You could well be correct in saying that Toga is based on Fruit 2.1. In this case, the so called "amateurs" who've "altered a few lines of code" have improved even more impressively upon Fabien's original efforts.
What Fabien might or mightn't be able to do is pure conjecture, but there's no doubting the guy's talent. He was a computer chess revolutionary, despite the anger of the anti open source brigade.

I don't think Toga developers only altered a few lines of code, I'd think they added more lines to the code. I recall someone (Uri? Dann?) saying Toga had had over 100 lines of code added to Fruit 2.1 and more what's more.. the alteration had been done to the existing code.

It'd be good If Toga is still being developed and imrpoved upon further.

[Graham Banks]

I don't think Toga developers only altered a few lines of code, I'd think they added more lines to the code. I recall someone (Uri? Dann?) saying Toga had had over 100 lines of code added to Fruit 2.1 and more what's more.. the alteration had been done to the existing code.

It'd be good If Toga is still being developed and imrpoved upon further.

Hi Swami,

how can adding more lines to the code not be interpreted as adding any further ideas as suggested by some?
I think that the anti-Toga argument is basically an anti-open source argument. Either you agree with open source or you don't, and those who are anti seem to have the most to say.
I'm not getting at you here.

Cheers, Graham.

[swami]

I don't think Toga developers only altered a few lines of code, I'd think they added more lines to the code. I recall someone (Uri? Dann?) saying Toga had had over 100 lines of code added to Fruit 2.1 and more what's more.. the alteration had been done to the existing code.

It'd be good If Toga is still being developed and imrpoved upon further.

Hi Swami,

how can adding more lines to the code not be interpreted as adding any further ideas as suggested by some?
I think that the anti-Toga argument is basically an anti-open source argument. Either you agree with open source or you don't, and those who are anti seem to have the most to say.
I'm not getting at you here.

Cheers, Graham.

I haven't employed anti-Toga argument anywhere. For the record, I'm not anti-open source either. I've always been in favour of open-source code. I buy everything Tord has to offer about open-source. But I'd have a problem if both Fruit and Toga entered CCT. Either of them is Ok.

As for addition of few hundred lines, I'd think they are all new addition and not just alteration. It's just that some people like Charles think they are not genuine unique ideas, those additions to Toga are cliche to them that's missing from Fruit 2.1. I have no understanding of the code, I just read what others programmers say.

[Graham Banks]

I don't think Toga developers only altered a few lines of code, I'd think they added more lines to the code. I recall someone (Uri? Dann?) saying Toga had had over 100 lines of code added to Fruit 2.1 and more what's more.. the alteration had been done to the existing code.

It'd be good If Toga is still being developed and imrpoved upon further.

Hi Swami,

how can adding more lines to the code not be interpreted as adding any further ideas as suggested by some?
I think that the anti-Toga argument is basically an anti-open source argument. Either you agree with open source or you don't, and those who are anti seem to have the most to say.
I'm not getting at you here.

Cheers, Graham.

I haven't employed anti-Toga argument anywhere. For the record, I'm not anti-open source either. I've always been in favour of open-source code. I buy everything Tord has to offer about open-source. But I'd have a problem if both Fruit and Toga entered CCT. Either of them is Ok.

As for addition of few hundred lines, I'd think they are all new addition and not just alteration. It's just that some people like Charles think they are not genuine unique ideas, those additions to Toga are cliche to them that's missing from Fruit 2.1. I have no understanding of the code, I just read what others programmers say.

My position is the same as yours. I know you're not anti-Toga or anti-open source, so my apologies if you felt I was implying that.

I only have one question of the anti-Toga lot though. How many engines are out there that are based on weaker open source engines than Fruit? If the same principle applies to weaker engines, we should perhaps see some of them coming under closer scrutiny also?

Cheers, Graham.

[Christopher Conkie]

I don't think Toga developers only altered a few lines of code, I'd think they added more lines to the code. I recall someone (Uri? Dann?) saying Toga had had over 100 lines of code added to Fruit 2.1 and more what's more.. the alteration had been done to the existing code.

It'd be good If Toga is still being developed and imrpoved upon further.

Hi Swami,

how can adding more lines to the code not be interpreted as adding any further ideas as suggested by some?
I think that the anti-Toga argument is basically an anti-open source argument. Either you agree with open source or you don't, and those who are anti seem to have the most to say.
I'm not getting at you here.

Cheers, Graham.

I haven't employed anti-Toga argument anywhere. For the record, I'm not anti-open source either. I've always been in favour of open-source code. I buy everything Tord has to offer about open-source. But I'd have a problem if both Fruit and Toga entered CCT. Either of them is Ok.

As for addition of few hundred lines, I'd think they are all new addition and not just alteration. It's just that some people like Charles think they are not genuine unique ideas, those additions to Toga are cliche to them that's missing from Fruit 2.1. I have no understanding of the code, I just read what others programmers say.

My position is the same as yours. I know you're not anti-Toga or anti-open source, so my apologies if you felt I was implying that.

I only have one question of the anti-Toga lot though. How many engines are out there that are based on weaker open source engines than Fruit? If the same principle applies to weaker engines, we should perhaps see some of them coming under closer scrutiny also?

Cheers, Graham.

Anything above 2100 elo comes under close scrutiny.

Why that figure? Because we know that is all that is possible with what is entirely free to use without permission and is open source.

Christopher

[AdminX]

"I've reviewed petitions from several Toga clones that want to enter
the ACCA tournaments. Each one claims their work is significantly
different than the rest and significantly stronger. I investigate the
claims and none have been valid. The amount of code changed is
minimal. They typically change only 5% of the code."

"An anecdote is the experience I had with Ted Summers at the last
ACCA Pan Am Champs. Ted spent the weekend with us and conversing
with us on all subjects. At the end, he told me that his opinion of
the clone issues had changed. He had learned much more about
what it takes to write a chess program. It seems most spectators
have little idea what it takes and thus can't tell the difference
between a clone and an original effort."

Baseed on the above facts as I have heard them, I still agree with Charles on this one. Funny thing Charles is I was going to state the very facts you mentioned above.

[Uri Blass]

What if Fabien Letouzey personally enters Toga and list all the people that worked on the project as co-authors with the authorization of all of them? Would you still say no?

Why enter Toga? His program is called Fruit.

You call changing less than 100 lines work? I bet those who changed them cannot even write a "Hello World" program. If they can (doubtful), they should be able to create their own entry for CCT. Ask yourself why they don't. Ask yourself more importantly why they choose one of the strongest open source programs to amend (or even break).

Could it be that they want to win the tournament?

Could it be that they want to revel in the glory of someone else's hard work?

if the chat performance is an issue, then no operators should be allowed (it may not be a bad idea for some of the tournaments, but that is another issue).

Miguel

By operators do you mean those who changed less than 100 lines in Fruit and then renamed the engine?



If so, yes....they should be barred...from the whole thing, not just the chat.

Christopher

Writing hello world program is an easier task than modifying fruit and making from it stronger program.

Claiming that you think that they cannot do it is only unnecessary insult because you can express opinion against participation of toga without insulting people.

Uri

[playjunior]

Somebody felt the need to post a link to his favourite pirate software as the next CCT 2009 candidates. Poll vanished into moderators subforum.

My comment was

I voted for yes, provided it does not endanger the participation of an entry by Ryan Benitez or Fabien Letouzey or another member of the Fruit team that would be the official Fruit representative, provided also that Fabien and Ryan don't object to Toga participating, - I can't imagine that Thomas Gaksch would object-, and it would be an official Toga entry by the TDDB forum, because I see that as the best way to limit the number of Toga entries to one actively developed fork of Fruit, a community effort from the TDDB programmers.

but when I wanted to post this Christopher's sabotage had succeeded and the poll from Peter Skinner had disappeared already...

That's a serious accusation Eelco!

Regardless, the Answer should be in my opinion a resounding NO!

Why?

Miguel

Because the CCT is a programmers tournament Miguel, not a copy/paste tournament. What are the famed Toga Twits going talk about in the chat there? What insight will they be able to offer? Will they be talking about how they changed a few lines in great detail?

There is no such thing as an official Toga entry in anything.

And to Eelco I would say....the following is the bottom line.......

The way to limit Toga entries is not to have one.

Christopher

Could you, sir, copy-paste Toga a couple of times and get a 100 elo improvement every time? From your posts it seems pretty easy.