Plague: a "new" chess engine based on Smaug

[Graham Banks]

So far from what I've read, I think some people seem bitter at the way modifier take the role of a main programmer. They will become tolerant once more emphasis is placed on original author.

I don't think that this will change their opinions. Some are just anti open source no matter what.

I came across this thread and had no idea what was going on. I just assumed it was something to do with naming convention. It seems that it was indeed more than that...

Talk to Ryan about anti open source sentiment.
There are a lot of programmers very bitter about Fruit 2.1 having been released as open source by Fabien, and many of them pressure Ryan constantly about not releasing any further versions.
Tord is also hated by many because he released Glaurung as open source.
The computer chess community is not as harmonious as we'd all like it to be.

[Peter Aloysius]

I suggest if a person has any idea how to improve an engine, he submit the idea to original author, not rename the engine and put his own name on it. The original author then decide whether he want to include the idea or not on the next release, if he does, he say thanks to all contributors in readme file.

That's called open source development. Make a few small changes, rename the engine, and put your own name on it, is called plagiarism.

Everybody happy this way, unless that person want to claim it as his own work.

As long as people follow the GPL agreement (or whatever applies), then they're not actually doing anything wrong.

That's ethically wrong.
Let's just say the sentence :

"engine xxx by yyy is a derivatives from engine zzz"

At first glance it seems ok because yyy is recognize the original engine, but the problem is it didn't pay enough respect to original author who did 99.99999999% hard work!

Someone who know nothing about computer chess can think that it was yyy who deserve main credit because he (possibly) don't know how strong engine zzz was and that yyy only actually make small changes. Let's say that yyy spends weeks or even months to improve 20-30 points, it still nothing compared to original author who spend YEARS to create a 2800+ engine.

Now I ask, if someone has idea to improve an engine, what's wrong if he should submit that to original author? Everybody happy

[Peter Aloysius]

So far from what I've read, I think some people seem bitter at the way modifier take the role of a main programmer. They will become tolerant once more emphasis is placed on original author.

I don't think that this will change their opinions. Some are just anti open source no matter what.

I came across this thread and had no idea what was going on. I just assumed it was something to do with naming convention. It seems that it was indeed more than that...

Talk to Ryan about anti open source sentiment.
There are a lot of programmers very bitter about Fruit 2.1 having been released as open source by Fabien, and many of them pressure Ryan constantly about not releasing any further versions.
Tord is also hated by many because he released Glaurung as open source.
The computer chess community is not as harmonious as we'd all like it to be.

as for me, actually I don't care much when Toga or Grape or whatever Fruit released. I agree that nothing wrong with that. I started to get annoyed when the derivatives authors feel that they should get more respect and even ask to be allowed to participate in tournaments or world championship, and people here think that OK.

Why it's hard to grasp that those tournament is a programmers tournament? The winner is not one who has the best engine, but the winner is the best PROGRAMMER. That tournaments is not to recognize the strongest engine, but to recognize the best PROGRAMMER. If people here really like to see how well derivate engine compete, they can arrange their own tournament at their own computer.

[Graham Banks]

That's ethically wrong.
Let's just say the sentence :

"engine xxx by yyy is a derivatives from engine zzz"

At first glance it seems ok because yyy is recognize the original engine, but the problem is it didn't pay enough respect to original author who did 99.99999999% hard work!

Someone who know nothing about computer chess can think that it was yyy who deserve main credit because he (possibly) don't know how strong engine zzz was and that yyy only actually make small changes. Let's say that yyy spends weeks or even months to improve 20-30 points, it still nothing compared to original author who spend YEARS to create a 2800+ engine.

Now I ask, if someone has idea to improve an engine, what's wrong if he should submit that to original author? Everybody happy

Please don't get discouraged Peter.
Many of us much prefer original engines, no matter how strong they are.

[Graham Banks]

as for me, actually I don't care much when Toga or Grape or whatever Fruit released. I agree that nothing wrong with that. I started to get annoyed when the derivatives authors feel that they should get more respect and even ask to be allowed to participate in tournaments or world championship, and people here think that OK.

Why it's hard to grasp that those tournament is a programmers tournament? The winner is not one who has the best engine, but the winner is the best PROGRAMMER. That tournaments is not to recognize the strongest engine, but to recognize the best PROGRAMMER. If people here really like to see how well derivate engine compete, they can arrange their own tournament at their own computer.

Fair enough point. Can't argue with you there.

[Tord Romstad]

Tord is also hated by many because he released Glaurung as open source.

If I am, those people seem to keep their hatred to themselves. I've never felt any hatred towards me from anyone in the computer chess community. There are people who want me to make Glaurung proprietary, but they are always friendly and polite about it, and respect my different opinion. Some of these people are among my best friends in the community.

The computer chess community is not as harmonious as we'd all like it to be.

In my experience, it never was. I think the problem is that people take computer chess far too seriously. Computer chess shouldn't be anywhere near important enough to make enemies over.

Tord

[Graham Banks]

Computer chess shouldn't be anywhere near important enough to make enemies over.

This quote should be put up in a prominent place as a reminder to everybody.

[Stan Arts]

As long as people follow the GPL agreement (or whatever applies), then they're not actually doing anything wrong.

And that's where you're wrong.

You always need law to tell you what's right and wrong? Morals have to come from YOU , not because some law, religion, family, community, etc. say's so.

Think for yourself. Authors of chess-engines have expressed dislike for cloning and "legal derivatives" quite often, which should of been more then enough. It's a matter of honesty.

And when it comes to testing, you are "wasting" testing time which you could of used for honest engines. Want to test "derivatives"? Fine, keep it to yourself. Also, most authors don't like having to play/lose against 4 versions under different names and "authors" of the same very strong program in a single tournament, online or off.

Stan

[Volker Annuss]

http://www.glaurungchess.com/glaurung22.zip

We think our Plague plays better than Smaug.

;)

Christopher

I challange you and your silly co-threaders to take a program like Glaurung (but I can say also Toga) and increase it of 20 ELO points.

You ARE not able to do it, otherwise you will be more respectful of the work of other people because you knew what it means.

I believe Chris is able to improve Glaurung by even more than 20 ELO. And I believe I am able to improve Glaurung by more than 20 ELO too.

Can you also say Toga? Do you understand the difference between improving Glaurung and improving Toga? I try to explain it to you in simple words.

Glaurung is a strong engine. It was writen by a single person, Tord Romstad. Tord wrote easy to read code. That is not always most efficient. Tord does not have computational resources to test every detail. Three is still much room for improvements.

Fruit is a strong engine. It was written by Fabien Letouzey. It has been improved by Thomas Gaksch and many others since then. Many ideas have been tested on Toga. There is not so much room for improvements because many already have been made.

In my opinion Smaug it is very interesting because the evaluation tweaks are GOOD.

Can you understund what it means GOOD?

GOOD it means that someone spent weeks with testing and frustating hard work on very little details just to try to increase an already very high level engine.

He spent these week not because of glory or proud (otherwise he put his name on a new engine), not beauce he wants to show off he his good, otherwise he doesn't publish the patches along with the sources to show exactly only the work that he as done without messing up with the rest of the code.

He spent this time just because of passion on these chess engine's software, and he published the results of really hard work so that everybody can benefit from these.

I think you really don't understuand what you are laughing about. You are like the bully at high school that laugh of guys just because diffrent from them.

You want respect from Chris and on the other hand impute him not to know how much work it is to improve Glaurung. (Or according to you one can also say Toga, but that makes a difference!) Everyone who works on an engine for more than just weeks knows this.

Do you know how much work it is to improve an own engine made from scratch? I tell you: It's years with testing and hard work on many little details. So what about a little more respect from your side?

Volker

[ilari]

As long as people follow the GPL agreement (or whatever applies), then they're not actually doing anything wrong.

And that's where you're wrong.

This is a recurring discussion, and probably everything worth saying has already been said.

Morality and fairness become problems only when someone tries to enter a derivative to a tournament. Otherwise you're just fighting open source and the GPL in general. And that's a really frustrating fight that can't be won.

Person A wants to share his code under a license which encourages others to modify it and distribute their derivate works. Person B does exactly that. The license is a legal contract between the two peope, and both are happy. It's very hard to get angry about something like this without coming off as a huge jerk. You can't accuse B of being a thief, and you can't tell A what to do with his code. All you can really do is call them dirty socialists who are unfairly destroying the competition.