Derivatives are real programs too

[swami]

And what's your definition by "Illegal"?

If, author of El Chinito and Fafis stated that his engine based on Crafty, should they called illegal clone or derivative?

Based on norm schmid definition, clone is engine that just recompile from other engine without changing anything. That's not the case with El Chinito and Fafis. Both of them made significant changes to Crafty.

Another point, if derivative engines legalized, we must apologize to all derivatives in the past that has been labeled as clone. Fafis, El Chinito, Patriot, and others, we must apologize to them.

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that "illegal" clones be legitimised, only those that have gone through the correct legal procedure.
It would have to take a morally bankrupt person to support illegal clones.

Regards, Graham.

ELChinito is a very attractive chess engine with a unique playing style,it plays much different than Crafty....I think it has a a lot of original ideas in it....

El Chinito was completely different from Crafty even if it contains chunks (or lackthereof) of Crafty code in it.

It's the case of Strict license and Light license.

I'd guess that Chinito was less of a clone to Crafty than Toga was to Fruit.

Bad luck for Chinito, and lucky for Toga derivatives.

I agree that clones shouldn't be allowed to enter the major tournaments, but with regard to testing, It's tester's wish to add it to his own tournament. If he doesn't like adding it, then he doesn't need to. If he likes adding it to the tourney, then he could.

[Peter Aloysius]

My character? Now I'm just jealous, right?

Let me tell you the main thing that attract me to computer chess is it's competitiveness aspect. It's like intellectual sport. I'm a guy who like to compete with others and computer chess provide me perfect opportunity.

Now, anybody, just anybody, even with zero programming skill, can come out from nowhere, with super strong "derivative", and asking to be allowed to enter tournaments. Isn't that broke competitive aspect of computer chess? Is that fair to 95% programmer who try to stand on their own effort?

And why should I have determination if all reward goes to somebody who come out from nowhere, make little modification to Fruit/Toga, and claim it was his own engine?

Depends upon your character.

Computer chess is already dead.

Many don't share your opinion.

Take my engine for example. Why should I work hard to get a few dozen elo points improvement if someone can come out from nowhere, making a few "modification" on Toga source and easily outplay Petir?

Pride, determination, perseverence.
You need to know that many appreciate your efforts with Petir.

Cheers, Graham.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

And what's your definition by "Illegal"?

If, author of El Chinito and Fafis stated that his engine based on Crafty, should they called illegal clone or derivative?

Based on norm schmid definition, clone is engine that just recompile from other engine without changing anything. That's not the case with El Chinito and Fafis. Both of them made significant changes to Crafty.

Another point, if derivative engines legalized, we must apologize to all derivatives in the past that has been labeled as clone. Fafis, El Chinito, Patriot, and others, we must apologize to them.

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that "illegal" clones be legitimised, only those that have gone through the correct legal procedure.
It would have to take a morally bankrupt person to support illegal clones.

Regards, Graham.

ELChinito is a very attractive chess engine with a unique playing style,it plays much different than Crafty....I think it has a a lot of original ideas in it....

El Chinito was completely different from Crafty even if it contains chunks (or lackthereof) of Crafty code in it.

It's the case of Strict license and Light license.

I'd guess that Chinito was less of a clone to Crafty than Toga was to Fruit.

Bad luck for Chinito, and lucky for Toga derivatives.

I agree that clones shouldn't be allowed to enter the major tournaments, but with regard to testing, It's tester's wish to add it to his own tournament. If he doesn't like adding it, then he doesn't need to. If he likes adding it to the tourney, then he could.

Thanks Swami,objective and clear as always

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

My character? Now I'm just jealous, right?

Let me tell you the main thing that attract me to computer chess is it's competitiveness aspect. It's like intellectual sport. I'm a guy who like to compete with others and computer chess provide me perfect opportunity.

Now, anybody, just anybody, even with zero programming skill, can come out from nowhere, with super strong "derivative", isn't that broke competitive aspect of computer chess?

And why should I have determination if all reward goes to somebody who come out from nowhere, make little modification to Fruit/Toga, and claim it was his own engine?

Depends upon your character.

Computer chess is already dead.

Many don't share your opinion.

Take my engine for example. Why should I work hard to get a few dozen elo points improvement if someone can come out from nowhere, making a few "modification" on Toga source and easily outplay Petir?

Pride, determination, perseverence.
You need to know that many appreciate your efforts with Petir.

Cheers, Graham.

Hi Peter,
I am sure that Graham's intention was anything but insulting you....he is a decent guy and a good friend,he only shared his opinion regarding the particular issue....

[Graham Banks]

My character? Now I'm just jealous, right?

Let me tell you the main thing that attract me to computer chess is it's competitiveness aspect. It's like intellectual sport. I'm a guy who like to compete with others and computer chess provide me perfect opportunity.

Now, anybody, just anybody, even with zero programming skill, can come out from nowhere, with super strong "derivative", isn't that broke competitive aspect of computer chess?

Sorry Peter. I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on your character.
What I meant was that how a programmer dealt with such a situation was an entirely personal thing.
Please don't give up. Make Petir even better than it currently is.

Regards, Graham.

[kranium]

I believe programs like Toga, Cyclone, StockFish, etc. should be recognized as legitimate engines and allowed entrance into major tournaments.

These 'derivatives' are not the same as 'clones' (which can easily be produced by hacking the original executable with with a hex editor, or simply re-compiling a new executable from source), due to the fact that they often contain enhancements, new ideas, and many hundreds of new lines of code, and are often largely re-written.

I know that Toga recently played in the world championship... I congratulate the tournament organizers for a more liberal and open-minded stance on the issue.

It would be benficial if the chess community (and tournament organizers) stop taking such a narrow view of what constitutes a legitimate engine and what does not...

IMHO, there's no good reason to 'blacklist' derivatives just because the author didn't reinvent the wheel, and started from a known source. That's progress...every tech advance stands on the shoulders of those before them.

a hacked executable, or a derivative where the only change is the name of the program, etc. is clearly not what I'm talking about here, that's different.

I'm expressing my opinion here, because I was just refused entry into the Pan American...apparently fruit derivatives are 'clone's.

Sincerely,
Norm

It is not a matter of how you got the program or how you label it. It is a matter of how many entries an author can have (only one). A derivative, by definition, shares authorship with with the original. So, if "Fruit" (i.e. Fabien) decides to enter in a tournament, Toga should not be allowed at all.

Miguel

i can understand that, and it makes some sense...i do want to point out that in this case (the Pan American), there is no version of Fruit, any any derivative of it already entered.

[Graham Banks]

I believe programs like Toga, Cyclone, StockFish, etc. should be recognized as legitimate engines and allowed entrance into major tournaments.

These 'derivatives' are not the same as 'clones' (which can easily be produced by hacking the original executable with with a hex editor, or simply re-compiling a new executable from source), due to the fact that they often contain enhancements, new ideas, and many hundreds of new lines of code, and are often largely re-written.

I know that Toga recently played in the world championship... I congratulate the tournament organizers for a more liberal and open-minded stance on the issue.

It would be benficial if the chess community (and tournament organizers) stop taking such a narrow view of what constitutes a legitimate engine and what does not...

IMHO, there's no good reason to 'blacklist' derivatives just because the author didn't reinvent the wheel, and started from a known source. That's progress...every tech advance stands on the shoulders of those before them.

a hacked executable, or a derivative where the only change is the name of the program, etc. is clearly not what I'm talking about here, that's different.

I'm expressing my opinion here, because I was just refused entry into the Pan American...apparently fruit derivatives are 'clone's.

Sincerely,
Norm

It is not a matter of how you got the program or how you label it. It is a matter of how many entries an author can have (only one). A derivative, by definition, shares authorship with with the original. So, if "Fruit" (i.e. Fabien) decides to enter in a tournament, Toga should not be allowed at all.

Miguel

i can understand that, and it makes some sense...i do want to point out that in this case (the Pan American), there is no version of Fruit, any any derivative of it already entered.

I agree with the points of view made by both of you.

[BubbaTough]

i can understand that, and it makes some sense...i do want to point out that in this case (the Pan American), there is no version of Fruit, any any derivative of it already entered.

I agree with Swami that if testers want to test (or exclude from testing) derivatives that is up to them. I would expand that to say if tournament directors want to include (or exclude) derivatives that is up to them. It all seems pretty simple, whoever is doing the organization work gets to do whatever they want.

In the case of the Pan American, I would think the regional aspect would make adding a program derived from a French program a bit odd...unlike say a Crafty derivative. But such decisions are really up to the tournament director.

-Sam

[swami]

My character? Now I'm just jealous, right?

Let me tell you the main thing that attract me to computer chess is it's competitiveness aspect. It's like intellectual sport. I'm a guy who like to compete with others and computer chess provide me perfect opportunity.

Now, anybody, just anybody, even with zero programming skill, can come out from nowhere, with super strong "derivative", and asking to be allowed to enter tournaments. Isn't that broke competitive aspect of computer chess? Is that fair to 95% programmer who try to stand on their own effort?

And why should I have determination if all reward goes to somebody who come out from nowhere, make little modification to Fruit/Toga, and claim it was his own engine?

Depends upon your character.

Computer chess is already dead.

Many don't share your opinion.

Take my engine for example. Why should I work hard to get a few dozen elo points improvement if someone can come out from nowhere, making a few "modification" on Toga source and easily outplay Petir?

Pride, determination, perseverence.
You need to know that many appreciate your efforts with Petir.

Cheers, Graham.

Hi Peter,

I do understand your concern.

To resolve these conflicts, I could offer some compromises:

- Derivates to be not allwed in major tournaments (CCT's, WCCC's, ACCA's, IPCCC ... et all)

- Derivates may or may not be allowed in personal testing. What's stopping them? Add or don't add. Simple as that.

Some suggestion for the testers:

(yeah, along the way, I'd listen to my own suggestion )

- Create two rating lists:

One rating list that has all the _complete_ work "original" engines.

Another rating list with "derivatives" and "original" engines added.

So far, I don't know of any ratings lists that seperate "derivates" from "originals", they just put them together.

[swami]

- Derivates to be not allwed in major tournaments (CCT's, WCCC's, ACCA's, IPCCC ... et all)

- Derivates may or may not be allowed in personal testing. What's stopping them? Add or don't add. Simple as that.

On second thoughts, I think Sam is right. Adding the derivatives into the major competition is TD or Officials decision.


But I don't think they would be allowed anyway. Only WCCC's did allow them. But the programmer who programmed the derivate has to get TD's/ Original source (Fabien's) approval.