Something new ?

[Mincho Georgiev]

if I remember correctly, when Tord announced at winboard forum once that he is going to release the Glaurung 0.15 source code, Alexander Naumov as well as many others were bashing against him badly back then.
Their arguments was in fact kind of a future prediction. I think the "current state" that you mention is what they had in mind. That's the Snowball effect.
More and more stronger open source programs, less commercial ones.

Hello Mincho Georgiev,

As expected, Tord will make some modest comment about his contributions.



I would add though that if they really wanted to prevent the snowball from becoming an avalanche they should have bashed the author of Fruit as well.

Alas for the commercial (closed source) engines, the genie is out of the bottle and will never return.

Later.

When I wrote my above (first) reply to Marco, I forgot that Houdini, Fire e.t.c closed their sources. So my point was addressed to the FREE programs, not only the open source ones.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Bob,

and the people screams ...
"May he live long" or "Long live the king" a "New Hero was born" ...

For ten ELO more and a handfull changes without to do the main job.

A person which do it one time (copy and paste), do it with other things again and again.

Persons which do the main jobs in chess programming since many years are the looser in the "new" community which are new builded in the latest years.

And we can find the main reasons in it too.

Many are disappointed with commercial products, service, support or things people do which working on commercial area.

The black sheeps under the commercials don't countervailling the black sheeps under the free closed source engine programmers. Because its free and nobody have to pay for it.

I think we have to life with "cloners". I think that the part of commercials on these situations we have is bigger as the part of free chess programmers.

Cloners and fans are today a very big part of the community and this part will be stronger in the next years.

That's internet ...

Best
Frank

[Tord Romstad]

I'm not sure I agree: When looking at Ingo's list, I don't see a lot of open source programs. As far as I know, only Stockfish, Protector, Toga (which doesn't seem to be under active development), Crafty and arguably Houdini are open source. Critter used to be open source, but unfortunately it seems that the most recent versions are not.

I fully agree with you. I intentionally used "free" instead of "open source" to reach a wider audience, mainly people that _use_ engines more then developers.

I know, but part of my point was that to explain why the question whether a program is open source or not should matter even to regular users who know nothing about programming.

BTW Houdini is closed source although it derives from a public domain engine (Ippo)

Yes, that's why I wrote "arguably Houdini" in my list of "open source programs". It's not open source, but sufficiently closely related to a public domain engine that one could plausibly argue that the differences are of minor importance.

Regarding Critter, I think this is going to be the next big thing (it already is) mainly because Richard is someone that posts few times but when it does he always writes something very up to the point and very accurate. If it would be given to me the wish to choose what engine's sources to take a peek at, almost surely I would like to see Critter's ones, more then Houdini (because Ippo and SF sources I already know ) and even more the R4 that I think is just an evolutionary step above R3.

I no longer look at the source code of other programs at all (apart from whatever tinkering I have to do to make them compile in Mac OS X), but I agree that from a technical point of view, Critter might be the most interesting closed source engine right now.

[bhlangonijr]

Closed source is the root of all the major problems in the computer chess community today. It's what makes this places like this forum so unpleasant and unhealthy. If everybody just learned to play with open cards, we would no longer have the endless accusations (true or not) of cloning, cheating and reverse engineering, nor any mad conspiracy theories, nor silliness like an "Engine origins" sub-forum.

Tord, I have great admiration for you. Although I'm afraid there's some fallacy in your statements. The root of all major problems in the computer chess community is simply due to the lack of ethic of some people. Period.

Just as like you I have a steady paid job and have chosen chess programming as something I do in my spare time. I advocate development of open source, in fact my - weak - chess engine is open source as well.

However, I see nothing wrong with someone who is trying make a living with computer chess. How to make money without closing the source code? There are some kinds of software which some companies found a way of make money without closing its source code. But it is not the case here.

I know a lot of people who tends to romanticize a lot the idea of free and open souce software. Everything is colorful and beatiful, but when it came their own interests being affected by using open source, suddenly they completely change their minds. Fabien Letouzey who is in my view the most influential person regarding open source chess engines, even he tried closing Fruit sources when he realized the possibility of making money with it....

Regards,

[hovgrig]

I have just registered and it seems to me that this is the most artificial-chess-focused discussion board in the web... if it is the case and you are also interested in something new then you'd probably like to drop your attention here:
http://www.arshah.com/

[Graham Banks]

I have just registered and it seems to me that this is the most artificial-chess-focused discussion board in the web...

That's one way to endear yourself to everybody.

[michiguel]

if I remember correctly, when Tord announced at winboard forum once that he is going to release the Glaurung 0.15 source code, Alexander Naumov as well as many others were bashing against him badly back then.

Not quite. I don't recall anyone bashing me, but a few people - my very good friend Alexander Naumov among them - politely disagreed.

Their arguments was in fact kind of a future prediction. I think the "current state" that you mention is what they had in mind. That's the Snowball effect.
More and more stronger open source programs, less commercial ones.

I'm not sure I agree: When looking at Ingo's list, I don't see a lot of open source programs. As far as I know, only Stockfish, Protector, Toga (which doesn't seem to be under active development), Crafty and arguably Houdini are open source. Critter used to be open source, but unfortunately it seems that the most recent versions are not.

In my opinion, it isn't very important which or how many programs are commercial. As my grandmother used to say, money is just some paper. There isn't a whole lot of difference between a commercial closed source program and a free (as in "costs no money"; it is tremendously annoying that the English language uses the word "free" for two entirely unrelated concepts, and that I always have to specify which one I mean) closed source program. Open source or not is what really matters, and there, unfortunately, things haven't changed much over the years.

Closed source is the root of all the major problems in the computer chess community today. It's what makes this places like this forum so unpleasant and unhealthy. If everybody just learned to play with open cards, we would no longer have the endless accusations (true or not) of cloning, cheating and reverse engineering, nor any mad conspiracy theories, nor silliness like an "Engine origins" sub-forum.

I stopped being optimistic long ago, but I still maintain a small glimmer of hope that things will some day change for the better (otherwise I would have left long ago). Perhaps the number of strong open source programs just has to reach a certain critical mass first. With a sufficient number of open source engines, the idealists among us could simply refuse to use the closed source engines, and encourage others to do the same. Eventually we may reach the stage where closed source programs are not accepted in some of the major tournaments or rating lists, and the authors of such programs find themselves at a too big disadvantage to keep their sources closed. As the number of open source programs keeps growing, people will start to notice how much nicer and friendlier the CCC has become, and how much faster the chess engines improve.


Of course, this is just a dream, and it won't ever happen just like that, but I hope we'll at least be able to take some steps in the right direction. Every new open source program I see warms my heart a little. To the closed source programmers among you: By closing your source code, you are (more or less by definition) telling people that you have something to hide.

I respect everybody's decision to do whatever they want to do with the product of their effort and that is why I do not like your "idealistic view". It becomes dogmatic and intolerant when you start questioning the motives of other people. Dogmas lack imagination, as does your statement that people with not-open source programs might be sending a message that may be hiding something.

There are many valid reasons not to open the source of a program that has nothing to do with "hiding". For instance, the simplest one is that to open the source involves effort and time, and for people like me who do this as a hobby, the time is better used typing code. In fact, releasing the software takes time already and sometimes I wonder why the heck I do it.

In addition, software with a free license have been found to be caught "hiding" something (i.e. the "proper" acknowledgment of where it was derived from, for instance, Umko). That is no guarantee.

Don't you find this a bit contradictory with your idealistic view of what CC should be that the tuning software of SF is private? It is ok that you do what you feel is better, but I do not think it is fair to lay a cloud of mystery over software with a different model.

There is room for different models to satisfy different needs. Besides, not open source is not synonym of hiding and open source is not synonym of sharing. The problems are caused by people with no sense of ethics.

Miguel

Most of you may have legitimate reasons to want to hide things, and are probably not doing anything unethical, but nevertheless, some people will always get suspicious, particularly if your program is strong. Even if their suspicions are wrong and unfounded, they add a little more venom to this already poisonous community.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

if I remember correctly, when Tord announced at winboard forum once that he is going to release the Glaurung 0.15 source code, Alexander Naumov as well as many others were bashing against him badly back then.

Not quite. I don't recall anyone bashing me, but a few people - my very good friend Alexander Naumov among them - politely disagreed.

Their arguments was in fact kind of a future prediction. I think the "current state" that you mention is what they had in mind. That's the Snowball effect.
More and more stronger open source programs, less commercial ones.

I'm not sure I agree: When looking at Ingo's list, I don't see a lot of open source programs. As far as I know, only Stockfish, Protector, Toga (which doesn't seem to be under active development), Crafty and arguably Houdini are open source. Critter used to be open source, but unfortunately it seems that the most recent versions are not.

In my opinion, it isn't very important which or how many programs are commercial. As my grandmother used to say, money is just some paper. There isn't a whole lot of difference between a commercial closed source program and a free (as in "costs no money"; it is tremendously annoying that the English language uses the word "free" for two entirely unrelated concepts, and that I always have to specify which one I mean) closed source program. Open source or not is what really matters, and there, unfortunately, things haven't changed much over the years.

Closed source is the root of all the major problems in the computer chess community today. It's what makes this places like this forum so unpleasant and unhealthy. If everybody just learned to play with open cards, we would no longer have the endless accusations (true or not) of cloning, cheating and reverse engineering, nor any mad conspiracy theories, nor silliness like an "Engine origins" sub-forum.

I stopped being optimistic long ago, but I still maintain a small glimmer of hope that things will some day change for the better (otherwise I would have left long ago). Perhaps the number of strong open source programs just has to reach a certain critical mass first. With a sufficient number of open source engines, the idealists among us could simply refuse to use the closed source engines, and encourage others to do the same. Eventually we may reach the stage where closed source programs are not accepted in some of the major tournaments or rating lists, and the authors of such programs find themselves at a too big disadvantage to keep their sources closed. As the number of open source programs keeps growing, people will start to notice how much nicer and friendlier the CCC has become, and how much faster the chess engines improve.


Of course, this is just a dream, and it won't ever happen just like that, but I hope we'll at least be able to take some steps in the right direction. Every new open source program I see warms my heart a little. To the closed source programmers among you: By closing your source code, you are (more or less by definition) telling people that you have something to hide.

I respect everybody's decision to do whatever they want to do with the product of their effort and that is why I do not like your "idealistic view". It becomes dogmatic and intolerant when you start questioning the motives of other people. Dogmas lack imagination, as does your statement that people with not-open source programs might be sending a message that may be hiding something.

There are many valid reasons not to open the source of a program that has nothing to do with "hiding". For instance, the simplest one is that to open the source involves effort and time, and for people like me who do this as a hobby, the time is better used typing code. In fact, releasing the software takes time already and sometimes I wonder why the heck I do it.

In addition, software with a free license have been found to be caught "hiding" something (i.e. the "proper" acknowledgment of where it was derived from, for instance, Umko). That is no guarantee.

Don't you find this a bit contradictory with your idealistic view of what CC should be that the tuning software of SF is private? It is ok that you do what you feel is better, but I do not think it is fair to lay a cloud of mystery over software with a different model.

There is room for different models to satisfy different needs. Besides, not open source is not synonym of hiding and open source is not synonym of sharing. The problems are caused by people with no sense of ethics.

Miguel

Most of you may have legitimate reasons to want to hide things, and are probably not doing anything unethical, but nevertheless, some people will always get suspicious, particularly if your program is strong. Even if their suspicions are wrong and unfounded, they add a little more venom to this already poisonous community.

Totally agreed here Miguel....Tord used to be a nice guy some time ago,unfortunately no more....
Dr.D

[Graham Banks]

...Tord used to be a nice guy some time ago,unfortunately no more....
Dr.D

Tord is a valuable asset to our community. He has always been very pro open source. There's nothing wrong with having that opinion. Likewise there is nothing wrong with an author deciding to keep their engine a closed source one.
What does seem wrong is take open source code, build upon it a little and then release your engine as closed source.

[Roger Brown]

...Tord used to be a nice guy some time ago,unfortunately no more....
Dr.D

Tord is a valuable asset to our community. He has always been very pro open source. There's nothing wrong with having that opinion. Likewise there is nothing wrong with an author deciding to keep their engine a closed source one.
What does seem wrong is take open source code, build upon it a little and then release your engine as closed source.

Hello Graham,

Is it wrong to be taking open source, incorporating it without a whisper of credit and selling the program as a closed source commercial? At least giving the thing away may seem odd but you are not making any profit from it.

Your comments about Tord are 100% on target.

Later.