Pleading for TogaII take part in tournament

[slobo]

I think it would make sense to allow TogaII if Fruit did not want to compete.

At some point the GPL status may be looked at in tournaments. Who owns a GPL engine? If one engine is GPL it can use any part from another GPL engines, how much of another engine and what parts make it a clone of another GPL engine? If one GPL engine can not play should all be excluded? The intent of the GPL is to share in progress, something the computer chess community seems to sadly look down on. Tournaments are competitive, very contrary to the intent of an engine being GPL.

If it continues active development, then at some point, TogaII will diverge enough from Fruit to be a wholly different chess engine. In such an instance, I think it would be good to allow side by side competition with its progenitor. As far as two extremely similar engines in a contest -- that is a call for the tournament director. I think that the main reason they make the rule is that it is easier to legislate than think.

Suppose that ten guys from a community college somewhere all get a copy of Glaurung and make their own fork of the project. Each adds some interesting new facet so the programs are at least 50 Elo stronger than Glaurung. Now if we have ten current entries for a chess contest and we toss in 10 Glaurung clones (which would have been excellent engines even with no improvements). The big problem here is that Joe's engine now has to compete with eleven super tough Glaurung opponents instead of one. The chance to beat them all is exponentially lower than beating just one of them.

This situation is excessively theoretic. In real life we had only one or two engines based on Fruit worth to be mentioned. So, no need to suppose impossible things.

[Dann Corbit]

I think it would make sense to allow TogaII if Fruit did not want to compete.

At some point the GPL status may be looked at in tournaments. Who owns a GPL engine? If one engine is GPL it can use any part from another GPL engines, how much of another engine and what parts make it a clone of another GPL engine? If one GPL engine can not play should all be excluded? The intent of the GPL is to share in progress, something the computer chess community seems to sadly look down on. Tournaments are competitive, very contrary to the intent of an engine being GPL.

If it continues active development, then at some point, TogaII will diverge enough from Fruit to be a wholly different chess engine. In such an instance, I think it would be good to allow side by side competition with its progenitor. As far as two extremely similar engines in a contest -- that is a call for the tournament director. I think that the main reason they make the rule is that it is easier to legislate than think.

Suppose that ten guys from a community college somewhere all get a copy of Glaurung and make their own fork of the project. Each adds some interesting new facet so the programs are at least 50 Elo stronger than Glaurung. Now if we have ten current entries for a chess contest and we toss in 10 Glaurung clones (which would have been excellent engines even with no improvements). The big problem here is that Joe's engine now has to compete with eleven super tough Glaurung opponents instead of one. The chance to beat them all is exponentially lower than beating just one of them.

This situation is excessively theoretic. In real life we had only one or two engines based on Fruit worth to be mentioned. So, no need to suppose impossible things.

Cluster Toga by Kai Himstedt
Toga II
Gambit Fruit

Plus a plethora of illegitimate clones.

[gerold]

I think it would make sense to allow TogaII if Fruit did not want to compete.

At some point the GPL status may be looked at in tournaments. Who owns a GPL engine? If one engine is GPL it can use any part from another GPL engines, how much of another engine and what parts make it a clone of another GPL engine? If one GPL engine can not play should all be excluded? The intent of the GPL is to share in progress, something the computer chess community seems to sadly look down on. Tournaments are competitive, very contrary to the intent of an engine being GPL.

If it continues active development, then at some point, TogaII will diverge enough from Fruit to be a wholly different chess engine. In such an instance, I think it would be good to allow side by side competition with its progenitor. As far as two extremely similar engines in a contest -- that is a call for the tournament director. I think that the main reason they make the rule is that it is easier to legislate than think.

Suppose that ten guys from a community college somewhere all get a copy of Glaurung and make their own fork of the project. Each adds some interesting new facet so the programs are at least 50 Elo stronger than Glaurung. Now if we have ten current entries for a chess contest and we toss in 10 Glaurung clones (which would have been excellent engines even with no improvements). The big problem here is that Joe's engine now has to compete with eleven super tough Glaurung opponents instead of one. The chance to beat them all is exponentially lower than beating just one of them.

This situation is excessively theoretic. In real life we had only one or two engines based on Fruit worth to be mentioned. So, no need to suppose impossible things.

Cluster Toga by Kai Himstedt
Toga II
Gambit Fruit

Plus a plethora of illegitimate clones.

Will the real Toga please stand up.

[slobo]

I think it would make sense to allow TogaII if Fruit did not want to compete.

At some point the GPL status may be looked at in tournaments. Who owns a GPL engine? If one engine is GPL it can use any part from another GPL engines, how much of another engine and what parts make it a clone of another GPL engine? If one GPL engine can not play should all be excluded? The intent of the GPL is to share in progress, something the computer chess community seems to sadly look down on. Tournaments are competitive, very contrary to the intent of an engine being GPL.

If it continues active development, then at some point, TogaII will diverge enough from Fruit to be a wholly different chess engine. In such an instance, I think it would be good to allow side by side competition with its progenitor. As far as two extremely similar engines in a contest -- that is a call for the tournament director. I think that the main reason they make the rule is that it is easier to legislate than think.

Suppose that ten guys from a community college somewhere all get a copy of Glaurung and make their own fork of the project. Each adds some interesting new facet so the programs are at least 50 Elo stronger than Glaurung. Now if we have ten current entries for a chess contest and we toss in 10 Glaurung clones (which would have been excellent engines even with no improvements). The big problem here is that Joe's engine now has to compete with eleven super tough Glaurung opponents instead of one. The chance to beat them all is exponentially lower than beating just one of them.

This situation is excessively theoretic. In real life we had only one or two engines based on Fruit worth to be mentioned. So, no need to suppose impossible things.

Cluster Toga by Kai Himstedt
Toga II
Gambit Fruit

Plus a plethora of illegitimate clones.

Hi Dann,

the best of them must be allowed to participate in tournaments.

[BubbaTough]

While I am not sure about Toga vs. Fruit, I would like to claim that LearningLemming0.25 is sufficiently different from LearningLemming0.13b that they should both be allowed to compete in tournaments together. LearningLemming0.25 is several hundred points stronger, many hours of work went into creating this extra strength, and most of the code at this point has been changed. Thank you for your consideration.

-Sam

p.s. I am patiently awaiting your findings, as there are several other versions of LearningLemming that deserve consideration for parallel participation.

p.p.s. even though there is an implied opinion in this quote, I am really quite neutral, and just amusing myself with this post while I investigate why my 2.6 ghz computer has been at running at 1.6 (I am guessing heat but my heat lamp/bucket of water experiments should prove one way or another).

[Dann Corbit]

I think it would make sense to allow TogaII if Fruit did not want to compete.

At some point the GPL status may be looked at in tournaments. Who owns a GPL engine? If one engine is GPL it can use any part from another GPL engines, how much of another engine and what parts make it a clone of another GPL engine? If one GPL engine can not play should all be excluded? The intent of the GPL is to share in progress, something the computer chess community seems to sadly look down on. Tournaments are competitive, very contrary to the intent of an engine being GPL.

If it continues active development, then at some point, TogaII will diverge enough from Fruit to be a wholly different chess engine. In such an instance, I think it would be good to allow side by side competition with its progenitor. As far as two extremely similar engines in a contest -- that is a call for the tournament director. I think that the main reason they make the rule is that it is easier to legislate than think.

Suppose that ten guys from a community college somewhere all get a copy of Glaurung and make their own fork of the project. Each adds some interesting new facet so the programs are at least 50 Elo stronger than Glaurung. Now if we have ten current entries for a chess contest and we toss in 10 Glaurung clones (which would have been excellent engines even with no improvements). The big problem here is that Joe's engine now has to compete with eleven super tough Glaurung opponents instead of one. The chance to beat them all is exponentially lower than beating just one of them.

This situation is excessively theoretic. In real life we had only one or two engines based on Fruit worth to be mentioned. So, no need to suppose impossible things.

Cluster Toga by Kai Himstedt
Toga II
Gambit Fruit

Plus a plethora of illegitimate clones.

Hi Dann,

the best of them must be allowed to participate in tournaments.

That is up to the tournament directors. If they do not allow clones, then whichever version they allow is the version that should be allowed to compete.

At the root of the matter, the majority of the work is usually done by the original author. Eventually the clones may diverge to the point where we can say that the engines are "barely related" and perhaps at that point even in a 'one author' engine contest more than one variant can compete. But which engines by which authors are allowed is totally defined by the people who run the tournament. On the other hand, anyone can run a tournament including you. In fact, if you so desire, you can run a "fruit clones only" tournament.

[Dann Corbit]

I think it would make sense to allow TogaII if Fruit did not want to compete.

At some point the GPL status may be looked at in tournaments. Who owns a GPL engine? If one engine is GPL it can use any part from another GPL engines, how much of another engine and what parts make it a clone of another GPL engine? If one GPL engine can not play should all be excluded? The intent of the GPL is to share in progress, something the computer chess community seems to sadly look down on. Tournaments are competitive, very contrary to the intent of an engine being GPL.

If it continues active development, then at some point, TogaII will diverge enough from Fruit to be a wholly different chess engine. In such an instance, I think it would be good to allow side by side competition with its progenitor. As far as two extremely similar engines in a contest -- that is a call for the tournament director. I think that the main reason they make the rule is that it is easier to legislate than think.

Suppose that ten guys from a community college somewhere all get a copy of Glaurung and make their own fork of the project. Each adds some interesting new facet so the programs are at least 50 Elo stronger than Glaurung. Now if we have ten current entries for a chess contest and we toss in 10 Glaurung clones (which would have been excellent engines even with no improvements). The big problem here is that Joe's engine now has to compete with eleven super tough Glaurung opponents instead of one. The chance to beat them all is exponentially lower than beating just one of them.

This situation is excessively theoretic. In real life we had only one or two engines based on Fruit worth to be mentioned. So, no need to suppose impossible things.

Cluster Toga by Kai Himstedt
Toga II
Gambit Fruit

Plus a plethora of illegitimate clones.

Forgot about "Sloppy" which has a lot of Fruit in it and is clearly a legitimate clone.

There may be others I forgot about as well.