What's Vasik Rajlich doing today?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Ed,

very intelligent people will start the following defense!
I hear that

Is the work from Person A complete unknown, complete originalty. Chess knowledge aren't building from the beginning of Fruit. Are the main parts from Fruit really used for a second program? Could be the answere!

In computer chess fora most discuss about Elo. But Elo alone is most nonrelevant. Different will not understand it. Most nonrelevant is ... are own ideas in the picuture. All this is nonrelevant, again most not understand it.

So I wrote in an other message to that topic:

Other example:
We have a programmer with a lot of own and good ideas, maybe Robert or Vas has. Should such persons now reinvent the wheel? With others words, no great talent have a good chance today to public an own program. Because 80 or 90% of material he used are good known chess knowledge.

First question of all is:
What are the most important parts of a chess program?
Are the most important parts of chess program general knowledge?
It's possible to set general knowledge under copyright?
What is general chess knowledge in detail?

I missed a page about it.
A page made by experts.

Have a look here ...
Originality an engine have with the following parts ...
List of parts an engine get an own face.

Honestly Ed ...
We have the year 2015 and we are completely not organized to important questions. Here our ICGA should work a bit with programming experts. I sayed that for around 10 years in a discussion with Robert Hyatt.

Computer chess today is a self-service-outlet and open sources will give a not organized selection the right down to the last detail.

So many intelligent people aren't able for a better organisation? Such a opinion will build a judge if he have more details to all this. On the other hand, we are not alone with computer chess software and such problems. A big problem in software industry generally. But we goes with a good example in front ... THANKS for it.

Never I would have such a bad situation.
Again we should intellegent enough to clear all this bad things.
ChessWiki is good, the best work ever done for computer chess but with ChessWiki we can't solved the main problems.

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Sedat,

if Vas have a big heart ... he should try to solved the situation. I can give you a list of 1.000 persons with a big heart for our Hobby. Vas isn't on that list, sorry!

Right, I don't like persons "like" Vas
Bad english ... I know!

But the situation have nothing to do with ... I like or I dislike. The situation have nothing to do with 500 Elo more or less. Read my other message from today. That is complete Nonsens. In my opinion the Problem is 500% deeper ...

500% deeper as your wrote ... and not 500 Elo more

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Sedat ...
FACT is ... you stand from the 1.000 persons under my TOP-10
Have nothing to do with your opinion to Rybka, Vas or other things. Graham is also under my TOP-10.

More Sedat's can make Computer chess much more interesting. Please not forget my opinion to your person, also in case we have here build an other opinion.

IMPORTANT!!!
We have to accept us.
quarrels are not a big step ...
Such quarrels are more bad because we aren't strong enough for it. The group of Computer chess fans aren't big enough. We should try to build a unit. All of us! We have more possibilties ... most are working alone. More and more people have problems with others.

I wrote yesterday about a nice Statement from Richard von Weizäcker. This helps in times we wish others ... wish others ... I mean wish others ... that he can not find in the evening a dainty bar of chocolate at home. You know what I will say to you.

Best
Frank

[Sedat Canbaz]

Dear Frank,

You are and Me talked a lot about issue...
And continuing about this issue will be meaningless, right ?

You can work with 'Soldier' engines like Naum, Critter etc...)!

But I will prefer to work with 'General' engines like Rybka, Houdini etc...!)

Oh just I'd like to add,
I can test those soldier engines, but just with edit-name or in other league...but not in general league...)!


Best,
Sedat

[Frank Quisinsky]

Naum is really a topic!
Often I am thinking it could be Rybka in one of the first Versions. Analyzes, lines are different. Style is around the same but with bigger different into the same style. It can be random that Naum and Rybka have around the same style.

Critter is clear for myself after all information the Critter programmer gave us. His view of all this I can reproduced but I am not an fan of it. Critter lost the own face more and more because I think that the programmer made the engine very fast stronger with good known knowledge, comes from IPP. It's a pity because Critter was great in earlier versions. Sources from earlier Critter versions are free, no clone. Sources from versions later he sent to others, others gave the information ... no clone! That is enough for me. I can see in stats too that Critter have important differents to others. But stats from the latest Critter versions are very similar with IPP engines.

I think the programmer goes a way users await. Users are looking more on Elo and not on originality. Wrong I think for Computer chess Lovers. Persons using only the best chess programs will have an other opinion.

Different programmers do what users await.

But all in all ...
I am thinking that the programmer of Critter have much more knowledge to chess programming as other TOP programmers. After all what I read from him he is very talented ... and here again ... we lost a good programmer with Richard Vida.

Why?
Easy ... the main topic from this thread!
We lost a lot of others because we have a bad black hole in Computer chess. This one is to solved or we lost in the future more of interesting engines. OK, today ... six years after ... Computer chess is on a good way again. Defected bridge are repaired ... hope is repairings are good enough and problems stops.

Best
Frank

[Sedat Canbaz]

Hello Frank,

That's right,
Mostly of the people do not care about originality, the Elo is more important...

And once more I say,
You are in my eyes like 'FATHER' you should be a good example to all testers !
And please be more careful in case of picking those engines like Critter Naum...
Because they are not clean ones...believe me...

That's all

Best,
Sedat

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Sedat,

most of people ... but Elo isn't most important for myself. To Naum and Critter I wrote before and in other messages.

I must not see 5 engine under the TOP 8 with the same style and 100 Elo differents. Made no sense for me, test time can be better used.

I have the same fun with engines around 2.600 or engines with around 3.100 Elo. No person from us can see the differents if a eng-eng match between 2.600 Elo engines runs or a eng-eng matches between 3.100 Elo runs. Matches between engines have 3.100 Elo are often more boring, games runs longer ...

Much more interesting if I can see an other style.

Do you know why we have so many persons, looking on Elo only? Such people have often no other things as to visit a Rating list. The own knowledge from all of us is to bad if we compare with chess engines.

That is really a Problem ...
I am thinking I must do more as to produce a boring Rating list only. More as to produce Elo only. Each engine should have an own face!

Have a look in the opinions by Readers to the playing style of engines. Very passive engines are the big attacker. Why, user saw such a game a passiv engine win by random a fast game.

I wish me that programmers try to create specials in her engines. A good example is ICE ... eval after opening book moves. Strong in the first period. Such things I like if 1.000 engines are available for us.

Often I am thinking persons looking on Elo only are not Computer chess Lovers, more statistic lovers. It's OK but for good statistics we don't have enough good programs. Databases we have here aren't good enough to create strong statistics for engines, playing with over 2.600 Elo.

Best
Frank

[Rebel]

Perhaps you can also comment on my hypothetical example, aimed at illustrating the difference between copyright infringement and ICGA rule#2 violations. Because Ed still thinks these are exactly the same, and actually did explicitly mention you as someone that would agree with that.

Never said nor implied that.

[hgm]

Does that mean you are prepared to finally admit that they are different?

So that the claim that Vas has not been proven guilty of copyright infringement does not imply that he was not guilty of ICGA rule #2 violation....? And is in thuis context thus completely irrelevant?

[velmarin]

Somebody here must know him or Iweta! I am curious..

Sure that it does not read this thread.


Hijacked thread.

Great testers need their share of power.