How Original Do You Think Your Engines Are?

[Christopher Conkie]

This is only an exit poll......

What I want to see is the communities opinion on what they are offered. I am not looking for examples (we can find them ourselves anyway). Only looking for an understanding of what you currently download.

If you need a definition of what is original, I would say that it must have been developed from the ground up and if they (in general) were not.....what percentage (building in both good and bad) would you say that originality is at?

Chris

[Christopher Conkie]

A little music to help you all while you think about it...... I don't see why the good descriptions of everything should only be in the CTF.



And if you are German......





Chris

[Graham Banks]

This is only an exit poll......

What I want to see is the communities opinion on what they are offered. I am not looking for examples (we can find them ourselves anyway). Only looking for an understanding of what you currently download.

If you need a definition of what is original, I would say that it must have been developed from the ground up and if they (in general) were not.....what percentage (building in both good and bad) would you say that originality is at?

Chris

Firstly, this is just an opinion and as you know I have no programming knowledge whatsoever.

I would imagine that very few engines are totally original.
I'd expect that the vast majority of engine authors have used and likely expanded on ideas that have been previously used, in addition to the odd new idea of their own.

If you're talking about starting from an open source code base and then building your engine around that, I'd say that you're looking at quite a few engines (both past and present).
In the past, such engines would probably have flown beneath the radar because available open source engines weren't that strong.
However today, available open source is obviously a lot stronger and so such engines are more visible.

As a user, if I see that engines play noticeably differently, I see them as being different.
The fact that they play with different styles, obviously different material and positional values, and different move choices makes them "original" in their own way.

Having said all that, I can also see where some of the more rigid programmers are coming from and can understand their frustrations.

The way I see it, one has a choice - accept that computer chess has changed and move on, or get so worked up about it that you eventually lose interest in the hobby.
In my case, I decided that I enjoy watching engines play against each other so much, I'd just test what I wanted to test and let the programmers argue away about what is and what isn't original. I don't see them ever agreeing on too much though.

[Christopher Conkie]

This is only an exit poll......

What I want to see is the communities opinion on what they are offered. I am not looking for examples (we can find them ourselves anyway). Only looking for an understanding of what you currently download.

If you need a definition of what is original, I would say that it must have been developed from the ground up and if they (in general) were not.....what percentage (building in both good and bad) would you say that originality is at?

Chris

Firstly, this is just an opinion and as you know I have no programming knowledge whatsoever.

I would imagine that very few engines are totally original.
I'd expect that the vast majority of engine authors have used and likely expanded on ideas that have been previously used, in addition to the odd new idea of their own.

If you're talking about starting from an open source code base and then building your engine around that, I'd say that you're looking at quite a few engines (both past and present).
In the past, such engines would probably have flown beneath the radar because available open source engines weren't that strong.
However today, available open source is obviously a lot stronger and so such engines are more visible.

As a user, if I see that engines play noticeably differently, I see them as being different.
The fact that they play with different styles, obviously different material and positional values, and different move choices makes them "original" in their own way.

Having said all that, I can also see where some of the more rigid programmers are coming from and can understand their frustrations.

The way I see it, one has a choice - accept that computer chess has changed and move on, or get so worked up about it that you eventually lose interest in the hobby.
In my case, I decided that I enjoy watching engines play against each other so much, I'd just test what I wanted to test and let the programmers argue away about what is and what isn't original. I don't see them ever agreeing on too much though.

All that is good Graham, so would you not accept that a higher bench mark of what is acceptable should be in place? What entry level of acceptability is there? What ELO even? 2000 maybe 2400?

I'm not concerned about the big guys, I have always (and you can ask anyone about that but you of all should know it already) been with the guys (and gals) who are just starting out. Maybe a uni project or something else more personal.

There must now be a point at which you say something is too strong before you criticize or even scrutinize?

What is that point?....and hence the poll.....



Chris

[Graham Banks]

This is only an exit poll......

What I want to see is the communities opinion on what they are offered. I am not looking for examples (we can find them ourselves anyway). Only looking for an understanding of what you currently download.

If you need a definition of what is original, I would say that it must have been developed from the ground up and if they (in general) were not.....what percentage (building in both good and bad) would you say that originality is at?

Chris

Firstly, this is just an opinion and as you know I have no programming knowledge whatsoever.

I would imagine that very few engines are totally original.
I'd expect that the vast majority of engine authors have used and likely expanded on ideas that have been previously used, in addition to the odd new idea of their own.

If you're talking about starting from an open source code base and then building your engine around that, I'd say that you're looking at quite a few engines (both past and present).
In the past, such engines would probably have flown beneath the radar because available open source engines weren't that strong.
However today, available open source is obviously a lot stronger and so such engines are more visible.

As a user, if I see that engines play noticeably differently, I see them as being different.
The fact that they play with different styles, obviously different material and positional values, and different move choices makes them "original" in their own way.

Having said all that, I can also see where some of the more rigid programmers are coming from and can understand their frustrations.

The way I see it, one has a choice - accept that computer chess has changed and move on, or get so worked up about it that you eventually lose interest in the hobby.
In my case, I decided that I enjoy watching engines play against each other so much, I'd just test what I wanted to test and let the programmers argue away about what is and what isn't original. I don't see them ever agreeing on too much though.

All that is good Graham, so would you not accept that a higher bench mark of what is acceptable should be in place? What entry level of acceptability is there? What ELO even? 2000 maybe 2400?

I'm not concerned about the big guys, I have always (and you can ask anyone about that but you of all should know it already) been with the guys (and gals) who are just starting out. Maybe a uni project or something else more personal.

There must now be a point at which you say something is too strong before you criticize or even scrutinize?

What is that point?....and hence the poll.....



Chris

Not my place to say, so I don't really have an opinion.

However, I doubt that you'll ever get universal agreement amongst programmers as to what is or isn't acceptable. And even if an agreement is reached, who is going to determine which engines break the rules and how?

I will say though, that I don't think that strength should be a determining factor.

[Christopher Conkie]

rolleston on dove

[Christopher Conkie]

rolleston on dove

....is what a friend said they would do....and they live there.

[Graham Banks]

rolleston on dove

....is what a friend said they would do....and they live there.

No idea what this is referring to. Sorry.

[gerold]

rolleston on dove

....is what a friend said they would do....and they live there.

Is that anything to do with St. Mary.

[Christopher Conkie]

rolleston on dove

....is what a friend said they would do....and they live there.

Is that anything to do with St. Mary.

No..... doesn't matter. You had to be there. It is more to do with Fascists.....

Interestingly so far there is an even spread across the range of percentages.

Chris