Guetti wrote: if there is no code of Fruit2.1 anymore in the Toga used, then of course I think there is nothing wrong with entering Toga in tournaments.
Theres also nothing wrong IF it still legally contains parts that open source code. Where's the problem? Would the computers explode if they both participate?
It is simply an organizer decision.
No, the computers will not explode. But some tournaments don't allow multiple derivates of the same engine.
I thought CCT is one of them.
Last edited by Guetti on Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
F. Bluemers wrote: sureley not in the case of the version you mention(which is just fruit 2.1 with an occasional copy and paste error).
I meant Toga 3.1.2 SE, which is ~100 Elo stronger than Fruit 2.1.
So did I.
Anyway, I wouldn't complain if it participates in any tournament. Of course, a line needs to be drawn somewhere because nobody will want too many similar engines in the same tournament. I just think that after several changes in both since Fruit 2.1, latest Togas are different enough from latest Fruits. It's not like we would have the same engine twice.
If you compared Toga 3.1.2 SE (Special Edition??) with fruit 2.1,you would have seen it hardly differs from fruit 2.1
It has exactly the same playstyle.(and the old uci parameters bug)
Would we now have to check ratinglists to see which toga can and cannot play in a wcc f.i.?
Best
Fonzy
Mike S. wrote:I agree too. Despite "formalistic" rules, I think recent Fruit and Toga versions have become different enough. Recently, I was especially impressed by the 3.1.2 SE version which ranks #4 in the CCRL single cpu/blitz ratings.
Different enough?Maybe,but sureley not in the case of the version you mention(which is just fruit 2.1 with an occasional copy and paste error).
The proposition raises questions like :which toga should play,if one plays why not the other as well?
IMO it better to be "formalistic" to prevent going down a sliding slope.
Best
Fonzy
If there are computerchess enthusiasts here interested in some study of the codesources of Toga but do not want to read two hundred .cpp and .h files in WordPad I can heartily recommend the Open source and free program WinMerge to compare files and search for any differences in program code. It is really an indispensable tool. There are probably a lot of program editors with similar capabilities but I like this program a lot, I use it all the time if I want to check what lines I edited last with the next brilliant idea causing the program to lose yet another 100 elopoints.
Just go to Files -> Open, browse to the two locations with the the sources, like in this example
click OK and you get a list with all the files and a checkmark if they differ. Click on the file again and you get the sources side by side with any differences highlighted in yellow.
I have checked the differences with Toga II 1.3.1 of course and there is some change in the material evaluation of Bishops and Knights in the endgame, and changes in the three Futility Margins that I think Teemu Pudas has experimented with also. But the program still plays stronger in Blitz.
Fonzy what is the UCI parameter bug you mentioned? Is it the one that Pascal Georges has posted about a while ago, when he converted Toga for SCID and asked if Thomas would correct the main version? I don't know if Thomas has made a change there already? Do you have any recommendations for corrections to the source?
Eelco de Groot wrote:I have checked the differences with Toga II 1.3.1 of course and there is some change in the material evaluation of Bishops and Knights in the endgame, and changes in the three Futility Margins that I think Teemu Pudas has experimented with also. But the program still plays stronger in Blitz.
another difference is calling the pawnstorm code again in the kingsafety routine,so its called twice for the actual king position
Fonzy what is the UCI parameter bug you mentioned? Is it the one that Pascal Georges has posted about a while ago, when he converted Toga for SCID and asked if Thomas would correct the main version? I don't know if Thomas has made a change there already? Do you have any recommendations for corrections to the source?
Eelco
the difference with respect to the uci parameters is that in the gui might not notice changes made to them.unless at the start of a new game.
toga 1.2.1 calls parameter functions (pawn_parameters,material_parameters,eval_parameters) in protocol.cpp after it got a "setoption".
The easiest might be to take a fresh toga II1.2.1,use winmerge to copy the tweaks into toga II and leave the uci stuff as it was.
gl and Best
Fonzy
F. Bluemers wrote:If you compared Toga 3.1.2 SE (Special Edition??) with fruit 2.1,you would have seen it hardly differs from fruit 2.1
It has exactly the same playstyle.
If this is true, then as much as I love Toga, I don't think it should participate. We'd basically have the same engine playing twice (regarding playing style), so before that could happen, Toga needs to play much differently (Not just stronger.)
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
Guetti wrote: if there is no code of Fruit2.1 anymore in the Toga used, then of course I think there is nothing wrong with entering Toga in tournaments.
Theres also nothing wrong IF it still legally contains parts that open source code. Where's the problem? Would the computers explode if they both participate?
It is simply an organizer decision.
No, it's a question that is life or death for our field as such, see ethical dilemma.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Hi,
nice discussion but senseless.
I have never had any intention to participate at any tournament. I have no time for such gambling. Of course i would allow someone to participate with toga, if it would be allowed. Toga is only a fun project. Sorry that it is so strong. That is the real problem for the computer chess scene. And that is the only reason why it is hated from a lot of engine programmers and commercial programmers. There was a guy who took a good open source program made some changes and was able to beat a lot of commercial engines. And the other programmers worked very hard for little progress. And thats guy also distributes the source code. Thats really not fair. This engine has to leave the computer chess scene!!
And before the discussion starts again and again. YES, Toga is based on Fruit and YES, there is a lot of Fruit inside. If not Toga wouldn´t be a derivate from Fruit 2.1. In Fruit the evaluation is extremely good tuned. The testers of Fruit have done a nearly perfect job. I tried a lot of other things but nothing worked better than the original. So why should i change the original? Surely not for the people who count the different lines of the source code.
So have fun with toga and let the others gamble in their tournaments. Legal clones are bad engines.
Thomas
P.S. Of course there are much more engine fans and engine programmer who are great guys.
