TalkChess.com

ilari wrote: The license is a legal contract between the two peope, and both are happy.

Yes, see my post above? Legal in the case of computerchess (and a lot of other stuff, out there in the real world) is only one aspect. In life, I can be legal and still harm people all day long, or do I want to go through life doing good most of the time instead? BIG difference, both legal.

ilari wrote: It's very hard to get angry about something like this without coming off as a huge jerk.

That's fine. Matter of perspective, it's very hard not to come off as a jerk working with your elbows.

ilari wrote: All you can really do is call them dirty socialists who are unfairly destroying the competition.

Matter of political preference, I'd call them dirty capitalists, trying to have succes at all cost.

And I agree on this discussion everything that needs to be said has been said 10x already. But to me, the choice is to abandon computerchess or keep saying it.

Tord Romstad wrote: 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

While I agree, let me say a few words about that. First, to create a chess engine, even only moderately strong, could take years. That's a huge investments in time and people who are willing to do that can't be blamed to take thing seriously.

Second, computer chess community is a very narrow community, perhaps only around 1000+ fans around the world. So, is it wrong for a people who spend years to develop a chess engine to feel bitter by those derivatives who rob all already small attention they can get?

Well, perhaps it's a good time for all chess programmers to abandon chess programming and move to something more interesting, like computer Go or shogi (or a better alternative: get a life, like socialize in the weekend rather than wasting time improving his engine). This way, there will be no obstacle anymore for people here to get as much derivatives as they like. What could be better than testing 1000 different flavor of Fruit or 1000 engine each with different name from Lord of the Ring. Everybody happy.

Well, perhaps it's a good time for all chess programmers to abandon chess programming and move to something more interesting, like computer Go or shogi (or a better alternative: get a life, like socialize in the weekend rather than wasting time improving his engine). This way, there will be no obstacle anymore for people here to get as much derivatives as they like. What could be better than testing 1000 different flavor of Fruit or 1000 engine each with different name from Lord of the Ring. Everybody happy.

Well Peter, perhaps you are right: Get a life!
Why should I care about what people are doing with an OPEN SOURCE code available?
Those people are free to do what they like to do. So what?
You people sounds like a girl angry with the other girl because she have the same hair color. Please...
If you think your own engine is miserable so try to improve it. Or you can sit in your chair and cry forever because a boy have a stronger engine based on an open source.

Best regards,

bhlangonijr wrote: Or you can sit in your chair and cry forever because a boy have a stronger engine based on an open source.

Best regards,

Great idea. An athlete should cheer for another athlete who achieve a much better result by doping. We should give respect to athlete who achieve a much better result by doping, as long as he achieve much better. Let's suggest that idea to International Olympic Commitee. All athlete who not smart enough to use doping should cry in his chair forever.

The tone in this thread has changed
People are now suddenly serious

The one derivative I value most is not Rybka, but rather Toga.
The question is "which of the many Togas ?".

Matthias.

Matthias Gemuh wrote:The tone in this thread has changed
People are now suddenly serious

Matthias.

Yeah, where's Chris? Nobody here can be as good as him in sarcasm and humour.

Boys, boys

Reading (some of) this thread was in fact a lot of fun for me. You are like childs in playground arguing about toys

Did you read my post when I published Smaug 2.2.1?

* I'm only a novice chess programmer and have no intention to take honour away from original writer of Glaurung. Name "Smaug" was chosen to make engine origin clear.

* All patches applied to glaurung 2.2 can be found on Smaug's webpage. If those changes are found to be useful they can easily be merged in Glaurung (or in Stockfish)

I'm only a novice chess programmer and trying to learn this great art! I have so many real life activities that I have neither time nor motivation to start from scratch. I chose Glaurung, because, as many have already pointed out, codebase is extremely readable and simple. But you cannot learn to do programming by just reading the code, you have to mess with it. And when you have messed with the code you are uncertain (no matter how hard you tested) if your changes are really useful. You need independent people to test them. And the best way to get needed publicity is make a little release.

And you know what is really funny?

Before somebody started this troll-thread, there were some, but not many knowing about Smaug. However with this thread staying in top in talkchess forum for days (maybe weeks, who know how hard you will continue!!) there is more and more people wondering what is this plague/smaug stuff??

However if I had known how actively Marco is developing Stockfish, I had rather sent patches to him privately (and CC:ed tord) instead of releasing "a new engine" So it's unlikely there will ever be Smaug 2.2.2

I've spoken, so please continue

Peter Aloysius wrote:Second, computer chess community is a very narrow community, perhaps only around 1000+ fans around the world. So, is it wrong for a people who spend years to develop a chess engine to feel bitter by those derivatives who rob all already small attention they can get?

I agree to some extent, but I have a somewhat different perspective on it: I think the majority of computer chess enthusiasts are far too focused on strength. The weaker programs often have more character and personality, and are more fun to watch and play against. Moreover, that people are willing to test weaker engines is very important for the long-term progress of computer chess, because most programmers won't enjoy writing a chess program if nobody wants to use it before it is close to the top programs.

I wouldn't categorize Petir as one of the "weaker programs", by the way. It's one of the very best amateur programs. I hope you will keep working on it, and that there will some day be a version I can run on my Mac.

Tord

zamar wrote: However if I had known how actively Marco is developing Stockfish, I had rather sent patches to him privately (and CC:ed tord) instead of releasing "a new engine" So it's unlikely there will ever be Smaug 2.2.2

I've spoken, so please continue

A german proverb says:
Whoever says "A", must also say "B".

So you shall release more versions, perhaps named differently.
Feel free to do so.

Matthias.

Matthias Gemuh wrote:A german proverb says:
Whoever says "A", must also say "B".

So you shall release more versions, perhaps named differently.
Feel free to do so.

In Norway, we say:

Whoever says "BigLion 2.23x", must also say "BigLion 2.24".

There should be more BigLion versions in the future, too.

Tord