CODA now has a released page.

[Graham Banks]

I will always appreciate most the engines coded without AI assistance, and I can understand the feelings that many authors of such engines must be experiencing about these newcomers.

Having said that, we shouldn't just ignore further progress, even if it is not appreciated by all.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Code: Select all

These people are operating a fully-automated theft of all open-source IP. Your sentiments here are out of touch in this modern AI era, where tools like ChatGPT are able to recall, from memory, verbatim portions of Ethereal's source code, and illegally offers it to users upon request, without conveying any notice of the work from which the answer originates, nor the license attached to it.

If you want to continue to promote open-source, then you'll want to get on my side of the issue. These LLMs and the slop they produce are the end-stage of the great experiment where everyone shares.

Of course, they're perfectly understandable. Many things you have written, no doubt about that.

But in my opinion, the problems caused by AI, for example, will be almost impossible to solve. In a way, a lot of things just can’t really be solved anymore.

When I can barely keep track of something myself, I give up … and withdraw, feeling offended. When an issue starts to get confusing and I can’t even come up with any starting points for myself. Actually, my determination to do it is still pretty strong, but there are situations where I’m unable to make a single move. That hasn’t happened very often in my life.

So what can I do…
The old chess computers and more self-play chess. I know a lot of people do that.

A conversation with Andrew without arguing. That’s what I used to like so much about you. People make mistakes, and they’re usually punished for them. That’s just how life is.

[Graham Banks]

Code: Select all

These people are operating a fully-automated theft of all open-source IP. Your sentiments here are out of touch in this modern AI era, where tools like ChatGPT are able to recall, from memory, verbatim portions of Ethereal's source code, and illegally offers it to users upon request, without conveying any notice of the work from which the answer originates, nor the license attached to it.

If you want to continue to promote open-source, then you'll want to get on my side of the issue. These LLMs and the slop they produce are the end-stage of the great experiment where everyone shares.

Of course, they're perfectly understandable. Many things you have written, no doubt about that.

But in my opinion, the problems caused by AI, for example, will be almost impossible to solve. In a way, a lot of things just can’t really be solved anymore.

When I can barely keep track of something myself, I give up … and withdraw, feeling offended. When an issue starts to get confusing and I can’t even come up with any starting points for myself. Actually, my determination to do it is still pretty strong, but there are situations where I’m unable to make a single move. That hasn’t happened very often in my life.

So what can I do…
The old chess computers and more self-play chess. I know a lot of people do that.

A conversation with Andrew without arguing. That’s what I used to like so much about you. People make mistakes, and they’re usually punished for them. That’s just how life is.

Civilized discussions are always good. I hate it when things blow up and people start getting personal.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Graham,

thats right!

You'll need more and more time just to keep track of everything.
Even a group will eventually be overwhelmed.

Often, though, the main thing is just to keep ourselves busy with what brings us fun and joy.

In the long run, perfectionists have to make compromises. These people don't like doing that. I've always been a bit of a perfectionist. It was more of a hindrance than a help, but in important situations, it actually worked out well.

Well, I have to go shopping. I bought a second cooler bag to use as a backpack, but I forgot that I only have one back. It would look weird if I took the second one with me. Hopefully no one will see me. The older we get, the crazier we become ...

Have a nice day!

Best
Frank

[op12no2]

What matters here is intent; and it was clear - iteratively use an LLM to prompt an engine into existance - as an experiment to see what emerges - openly and honestly. Clearly Adam does not consider it an intellectual achievement - just an experiment. And one I find interesting.

Yes the licence situation is a can of worms and one that is being played out the world over in countless situations in both hobby and business contexts.

If I had a rating list I think I'd add Coda or "Coda-AI" as a benchmark. This is the current state of things with this particuar experiment. Well, If some sort of compromise could be made WRT licencing that is.

LLMs are getting better at generalising (see the latest Moonshots episode) and I'd guess that over time the Ethereal search issue would not happen. Of course there is still the issue that LLMs are trained on licensed material and even copyright material in the case of music and art - an ongoing battle.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Colin,

every compromise makes a situation harder to understand.
To the topic licenses.

People are masters at setting rules and following them. But no matter how well-intentioned we may be, we still fail to do so.

Yes, hobby and business contexts ...
Two different things!

In times I am working with Martin on Arena, we had our own rules.
If a person like to add Arena on his own site, please ask for a permission.
Why, I like to control it. From today's perspective, this is rather questionable because I can't control everything.

The laws from today are more or less the laws from yesterday.
AI will make this even clearer to us. Actually, we should be afraid of AI. It’s quite possible that AI will be our own downfall. However, I don’t believe that will happen.

Logic always takes precedence over everything, including applicable law, such as licenses.
Because of AI, we have to rethink quite a few things all over again. This constant madness of adaptation will eventually burn itself out.

And the logic is:
This causal chain of knowledge does not allow us to pass judgment on others.

This process is constantly changing, and everything else must always adapt to it. It has been this way since the time of the Neanderthals, and it will not change.

I don't like any of this; I wish the days of the HCE engines were back. My comments certainly also convey that I've given up fighting for anything when it comes to issues like these. It often doesn't make sense to fight, either. In that time, you could just hug a tree and release a lot of happiness hormones.

Best
Frank

[chrisw]

It is a shame to see the attention given to Coda here by long-time chess engine fans. In a sensible world, these long-time fans who have enjoyed decades of entertainment thanks to the work of (often) open-source developers, would not so willingly promote a work like Coda, which flagrantly infringes on the work of other programs. Coda, and a wave of forthcoming slop-engines like it, are going to dissuade chess engine developers, the real ones, from sharing their efforts with the world.

Coda fails to honour license obligations of potentially every single engine that it has pilfered. It does not convey notices sufficient for the end user to understand that the download contains GPLv3, and MIT protected code, from various projects. It also illegally attempts to re-license Reckless, an AGPLv3 program, by packaging a derived work under an incompatible license.

If or when such things are rectified, then Coda simply becomes a clone. How exciting.

But I have to say, I am not surprised. People on this forum still, to this day, continue to make posts about Fire and Houdini, two engines whose entire history from start to finish are filled with theft, fraud, and deception. You would think, or at least I would think, that out of respect for the works stolen by these engines, one would not promote them. Not to even start to mention the dozens of Stockfish "clones" ( identical with the author name changed ) that get "tested" by users here.

Perhaps Coda is what Talkchess deserves.

https://whittingtonchess.com/coda-analysis/

Machine-written, expertly directed — the sophisticated end of AI-generated.
Coda states it outright, and the name says it too — Chess Optimised, Developed Agentically. Its README: "every line of code was written by Claude Code, with direction, testing and review by a human." On the authorship axis this is unambiguous: the code is AI-generated.

But it is the polar opposite of a careless paste. This is a rigorous, months-long, SPRT-tested agentic build — 2,334 commits of experiment-driven engineering, directed by a capable human who has written engines before. Where Luna was AI output dumped unreviewed and Owen a one-shot agent build, Coda is the same underlying idea done with real discipline: it is a genuinely strong, sophisticated engine.

Confidence: Absolute on the AI-generated verdict — it is declared in the README and in the engine's very name.

The "done right" case. If Luna is the cautionary tale of AI output shipped unread, Coda is its mirror image: AI writes every line, but a skilled human runs a real experimental program around it — SPRT-gated changes, falsified hypotheses recorded, regressions rolled back. It is the strongest evidence in this whole series that agentic development, done with discipline, can produce a serious engine.

Coda is AI-generated — every line written by Claude Code, as its README and its very name declare — but it is the defining example of that done well: an expert human ran a disciplined, SPRT-tested, months-long experimental program, and the agent produced a genuinely strong, original engine (novel threat-aware NNUE and all). On the authorship axis it sits with Luna and Owen in the "AI-generated" band; on every axis of quality and rigour it sits at the opposite extreme. It is the clearest sign yet of where agentic engine development is heading — and shares Stockfish's techniques strongly while borrowing none of its code.

[Ciekce]

the agent produced a genuinely strong, original engine

:DDDDDDD???

[Sylwy]

Hi Andrew,
I am happy to read you share our assessment of these engines. We have discussed it and decided, we do not test it.
On the other side: did. you see your Name on the coda Site as contributor ?

WE-in particular or in general (human testers) ?

[chrisw]

the agent produced a genuinely strong, original engine

:DDDDDDD???

Depends on what you mean by original, I would guess. I think if the agent cant find direct copy/paste or remnants of another engine in there, it assumes the code was hand-typed, or in this case Claude typed.
What engine do you think CODA is based on?