What the computer chess community needs to decide

[hgm]

Perhaps we should look at writing programs for other games, less well known games or even newlu invented games,
where there will be a level playing field to start with, and less incentive for cloning / reverse engineering etc.

I would only encourage that, of course!

Can we look forward to participation of Rotor in the next version of this event?

[h1a8]

You are absolutely wrong. This is what really irritates me: The current tide of cloning is making everybody believe that everybody is the same. No. There are engines that started from scratch, being typed with the very hands of the author

int main (... etc.


If you are going to apply that criteria, Houdini will be one of the first to be out. You chose a wrong example here.

Miguel

No offense but I'm right. If you read my post carefully I didn't say authors always copied code. They at least translated some things, as Dr. Hyatt explained. No current author wrote a chess engine from scratch without the aide of learning from some other source. This is a fact.

No, it is not a fact, and you are wrong. There are authors that wrote their engine without studying others. You are making a blanket statement without knowing them all, and of course, you don't know them all.

I disagree. As it wasn't shown what is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH. Prove that Houdini 1.5a plays statistically significantly similar to another engine. I'll let you choose a reasonable definition of statistically significant.

Yes, it is statistically significant more similar to some Ivanhoes more than any other engine out there. I has been shown already here with data from Kai and Adam. I ran for them the jackknife analysis and there is no doubt. I may accept different interpretations, but not to ignore the data.

Miguel

There are no current active authors who wrote engines without studying others. To believe so is asinine. If you think you are right prove me wrong (impossible to do).

Saying they are is not bringing into existence and saying what you did doesn't make you right. You must SHOW here (this thread) and have your peers judge and come to their own conclusions. Just post a link.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

If you think you are right prove me wrong (impossible to do).

Not a big fan of Karl Popper, I see

[hgm]

There are no current active authors who wrote engines without studying others. To believe so is asinine. If you think you are right prove me wrong (impossible to do).

It is your statement that is asinine. I had never studied the source of another engine in my life, when I wrote my engines. Not even TSCP. (Except for the WinBoard protocol driver, because it was a faster way to learn WB protocol than reading the official protocol specs. But I don't consider a protocol driver part of the 'engine'.)

So you are taking about things you have no knowledge of, and for which it is obvious to everyone you cannot possibly have any knowledge of. Have you interviewed even a single engine author before coming to this silly conclusion? If you say it is "impossible to prove", that only means you are not prepared to accept anything as proof, and just want to withdraw into your own solipsistic World that you declared to be reality, no matter what the people that know say. After all, they could all be lying, right? They must be lying if the contradict you...

[paulo]

I had never studied the source of another engine in my life, when I wrote my engines. Not even TSCP. (Except for the WinBoard protocol driver, because it was a faster way to learn WB protocol than reading the official protocol specs. But I don't consider a protocol driver part of the 'engine'.)

Wow, amazing statement IMHO. If you don't look at the state-of-the-art engines how can you improve your CC knowledge to apply to your engines?
Can you imagine, for example, a surgeon saying something similar, that he never looked at all to recent developed practices and techniques?

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Wow, amazing statement IMHO. If you don't look at the state-of-the-art engines how can you improve your CC knowledge to apply to your engines?

Uh, independent research, perhaps? He's posted extensively here about what he does...

Or has it come so far that everybody thinks copying is the ONLY way to write an engine? Oh my...

Can you imagine, for example, a surgeon saying something similar, that he
never looked at all to recent developed practices and techniques?

hgm is free to do in his free, unpayed time, as he wishes, even if it is not state of the art. Looking at other engines is a good way to quickly approach the state of the art, and to get stuck in the same local optimum as everybody else. Given that hgm is not interested in creating the strongest classical engine, there's no reason for him to do so.

[paulo]

Wow, amazing statement IMHO. If you don't look at the state-of-the-art engines how can you improve your CC knowledge to apply to your engines?

Uh, independent research, perhaps? He's posted extensively here about what he does...

Or has it come so far that everybody thinks copying is the ONLY way to write an engine? Oh my...

Can you imagine, for example, a surgeon saying something similar, that he
never looked at all to recent developed practices and techniques?

hgm is free to do in his free, unpayed time, as he wishes, even if it is not state of the art. Looking at other engines is a good way to quickly approach the state of the art, and to get stuck in the same local optimum as everybody else. Given that hgm is not interested in creating the strongest classical engine, there's no reason for him to do so.

I didn't mention nothing related to copying, did I?
Of course everyone is free to do what he wishes but learning and opening horizons is always a good thing to do.

[Christopher Conkie]

Wow, amazing statement IMHO. If you don't look at the state-of-the-art engines how can you improve your CC knowledge to apply to your engines?

Uh, independent research, perhaps? He's posted extensively here about what he does...

Or has it come so far that everybody thinks copying is the ONLY way to write an engine? Oh my...

Can you imagine, for example, a surgeon saying something similar, that he
never looked at all to recent developed practices and techniques?

hgm is free to do in his free, unpayed time, as he wishes, even if it is not state of the art. Looking at other engines is a good way to quickly approach the state of the art, and to get stuck in the same local optimum as everybody else. Given that hgm is not interested in creating the strongest classical engine, there's no reason for him to do so.

I didn't mention nothing related to copying, did I?
Of course everyone is free to do what he wishes but learning and opening horizons is always a good thing to do.

You said this......

Today only a complete asshole would start coding a new engine from scratch, i.e., ignoring all the (best) available ideias and resources.

So either hgm is an asshole or your statement is wrong. Which is it?

[paulo]

Wow, amazing statement IMHO. If you don't look at the state-of-the-art engines how can you improve your CC knowledge to apply to your engines?

Uh, independent research, perhaps? He's posted extensively here about what he does...

Or has it come so far that everybody thinks copying is the ONLY way to write an engine? Oh my...

Can you imagine, for example, a surgeon saying something similar, that he
never looked at all to recent developed practices and techniques?

hgm is free to do in his free, unpayed time, as he wishes, even if it is not state of the art. Looking at other engines is a good way to quickly approach the state of the art, and to get stuck in the same local optimum as everybody else. Given that hgm is not interested in creating the strongest classical engine, there's no reason for him to do so.

I didn't mention nothing related to copying, did I?
Of course everyone is free to do what he wishes but learning and opening horizons is always a good thing to do.

You said this......

Today only a complete asshole would start coding a new engine from scratch, i.e., ignoring all the (best) available ideias and resources.

So either hgm is an asshole or your statement is wrong. Which is it?

Sorry, these 2 statements you point are both correct.
Please read again and try to figure out what is my notion "from scratch".

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Furthermore I strongly believe any experienced software developer agrees with this.

No.