Crafty UCI...

[chrisw]

And even if Steve did the coding, given the license it seems reasonable to assume that Bob is fine with this type of change. (In my memory the license was a lot more restrictive.)

My understanding of the intent of Crafty's license always was: keep Crafty open source, and don't turn it into a competing engine for official competitions without permission.

Problem with licences written by amateurs is that the intent may be one thing but the licence another.

[Steve Maughan]

Thanks for the comments. A couple of points:

I don't think there is any doubt about the license. Here are the key terms and I believe I have complied with them all:

1. Reproduction beyond personal use requires "express written permission of the authors."
2. Entering computer-chess competitions requires written permission — and then only under the name "Crafty."
3. The original copyright notice must be kept intact in copies of the source.
4. Any changes must be made public — "whether the distribution is being done for free or as part or all of a commercial product."
5. When others use it, it must be clearly identified as "Crafty."

Frank made the point that he's not in favor of updating old chess programs in this way. Of course he's entitled to his opinion, and I don't want to debate this, but I would say, nothing has been lost by this release. If anyone doesn't like the UCI version they can simply ignore it. It's a gift for everyone else who prefers the elegance of UCI. It only gives people extra options.

— Steve

[chrisw]

Thanks for the comments. A couple of points:

I don't think there is any doubt about the license. Here are the key terms and I believe I have complied with them all:

1. Reproduction beyond personal use requires "express written permission of the authors."
2. Entering computer-chess competitions requires written permission — and then only under the name "Crafty."
3. The original copyright notice must be kept intact in copies of the source.
4. Any changes must be made public — "whether the distribution is being done for free or as part or all of a commercial product."
5. When others use it, it must be clearly identified as "Crafty."

Frank made the point that he's not in favor of updating old chess programs in this way. Of course he's entitled to his opinion, and I don't want to debate this, but I would say, nothing has been lost by this release. If anyone doesn't like the UCI version they can simply ignore it. It's a gift for everyone else who prefers the elegance of UCI. It only gives people extra options.

— Steve

What you’ve done is great and, imo, is perfectly fine licence wise. I’ld take the “entering computer chess competitions” to be only restrictive for a competition that is set up by a third party and invites entries (eg icga annual, possibly now extinct).

1. Rating lists are not competitions
2. Online tournaments that you just turn up to and login are not “competitions that are entered”
3. Receiving an invite and accepting is or maybe isn’t “entering a competition”. Grey case.
4. End user gauntlets or matches are not “competitions that are entered”.

My take is that Bob was just trying to control for ICGA events, and that was his intent.

[Rebel]

Thanks for the comments. A couple of points:

I don't think there is any doubt about the license. Here are the key terms and I believe I have complied with them all:

1. Reproduction beyond personal use requires "express written permission of the authors."
2. Entering computer-chess competitions requires written permission — and then only under the name "Crafty."
3. The original copyright notice must be kept intact in copies of the source.
4. Any changes must be made public — "whether the distribution is being done for free or as part or all of a commercial product."
5. When others use it, it must be clearly identified as "Crafty."

Frank made the point that he's not in favor of updating old chess programs in this way. Of course he's entitled to his opinion, and I don't want to debate this, but I would say, nothing has been lost by this release. If anyone doesn't like the UCI version they can simply ignore it. It's a gift for everyone else who prefers the elegance of UCI. It only gives people extra options.

— Steve

What you’ve done is great and, imo, is perfectly fine licence wise. I’ld take the “entering computer chess competitions” to be only restrictive for a competition that is set up by a third party and invites entries (eg icga annual, possibly now extinct).

1. Rating lists are not competitions
2. Online tournaments that you just turn up to and login are not “competitions that are entered”
3. Receiving an invite and accepting is or maybe isn’t “entering a competition”. Grey case.
4. End user gauntlets or matches are not “competitions that are entered”.

My take is that Bob was just trying to control for ICGA events, and that was his intent.

Bob is from the first ICGA generation, the seventies. During that early period there were accusations about stealing ideas. Go figure.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Steve,

I remember that Bob was asked several times if he could add UCI. His opinion was always clear, he just wasn’t a fan of that protocol. You’ve been around for so long now, and I’m sure you remember that too.

That’s the main point I wanted to bring up. But of course, you’re absolutely right. It’s great for users, and nothing gets lost in the process.

I’ll also test your version 25.2.1 and compare it with my recent tests of versions 25.3 xb and 25.6 JA xb.

You know, there used to be so many exciting chess programs. I remember Gaviota, Thinker ... so many ... When I see how these chess programs, which are “only” 400 Elo stronger, get completely outplayed, it often makes me a little sad. That’s also the case with Crafty.

Stockfish is about 875 Elo stronger than Gaviota on a single core. Stockfish is about 775 Elo stronger than Crafty on a single core.

I often react irritably then; I can’t even say for sure if that’s the real reason.

What’s going on with Crafty isn’t my business either. I should care much less about a lot of things. I’m not even interested in Arena anymore, even though I worked on it for years. Maybe that’s also a curse when you’ve been around for so long.

End of the day ...
And this is fact ...
Crafty UCI is available, so many wait of it so many years ... you know!

OK, but the Crafty.rc is cult. When it comes to things like this, a battle rages inside me. Which is better ... crafty.rc or UCI?
And honestly, now that I understand, I realize Bob is right ... the Winboard protocol is the better one.

OK, we have both.
Crafty WB and now Crafty UCI.
Why not!

Best
Frank

Maybe we should respect Bob's opinion on the UCI and not do exactly what he himself never wanted to do. The thing is, I don't know whether I should be happy or not.

So I'm not quite sure what to make of it. My inner voice says... not good. My mind says: Great!

[Steve Maughan]

Hi Frank,

I’ll also test your version 25.2.1 and compare it with my recent tests of versions 25.3 xb and 25.6 JA xb.

I thought I'd used the latest version for the conversion. Is there a more recent version? If so, where can I find it? I found it. I'll update the code accordingly — UGH!!

I remember that Bob was asked several times if he could add UCI. His opinion was always clear, he just wasn’t a fan of that protocol. You’ve been around for so long now, and I’m sure you remember that too.

I remember it well. I respect Bob's opinion about UCI but I also think he's wrong. All new engines implement UCI. It's an amazingly well thought-out protocol that has stood the test of time. It has its weaknesses and vagaries that may one day be addressed. But I don't believe any of the top engines (or Crafty 25.2.1) are any weaker for using UCI.

— Steve

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Steve,

I know, I know ...

Bob had a clear opinion on the matter, one that was very technically detailed. There were countless discussions on this topic. It stands to reason —and I think it’s correct— that the UCI protocol is, of course, the simpler one, and that essentially every chess program developer uses UCI. But that might not have anything to do with which one is better.

In v25.1 was a time bug. I reported this bug here and try out different things with WB settings. Bob found later a bug and updated Crafty to v25.2. I believe the link to the disucssion with him can be found in WIKI.

I made a break in times v25.3 was available.
Maybe it comes from Bob, maybe not ... I don't know!

On Jim's Repo you can find v25.6 JA.

v25.3:
https://github.com/MichaelB7/Crafty/releases

Best
Frank

If you changed that ...
Let the v25.2.1 UCI on your github if you will add v25.3 or v25.6.
That's interesting, because v25.2 was a very strong version.
But again, not my decision!

[Frank Quisinsky]

If I compare v25.3 with v25.6 JA ...
In my opinion v25.3 is the better one.
I wrote about it in TalkChess for around 1-2 months.

[Steve Maughan]

Hi Frank,

Bob documents his changes in the "main.c" file. The last official version seems to be 25.6. See here:

https://github.com/MichaelB7/Crafty/blo ... src/main.c

At line 4,311 we see Bob's latest comments, or are these made by some other programmer?

I'd like to convert Bob's last official version of Crafty.

— Steve

[cpeters]

Terve!

Hyatt is/was perfectly capable of implementing UCI in Crafty. He didn't want to obviously (and obviously there's no trademark on the crafty to prevent this kind of changes (we had debian vs. the firefox/mozilla-guys in that matter...) while keeping the name). AI-aided "gifts to the community" (borderline reddit slang for aislopped nonsense (think of a GUI/wrapper for FFmpeg...) my ass but maybe useful.

Perhaps find another name for it: CraftyUCI 1.0?

Otherwise make it clear, that from now on you are new maintainer/speak for the project (hard to believe, because you even failed to keep track of the last releases).

greetings