="Ryan Benitez"
Sjeng was a GPL engine as was Faile. My understanding is that Deep Sjeng has no code in common with Faile. Fruit 2.3+ is non GPL with full rights given to me by Fabien. The copyright issues have been clarified with FSF because Fruit 2.1 is now owned by the FSF.
Thank´s for the clarification, Ryan!
And the question must be: When will be the release of a new fruit engine
Damir wrote:and how about Faile1.4.4 and Sjeng 7.0?
I heared Sjeng 7.0 too should be similar to Faile1.4.4?
Should it be considered a clone too, if you look on the source ?
You don't have to "heared". The source is on my webpage. Just look at the AUTHORS file, it answers your question.
Sjeng was a GPL engine as was Faile.
Faile is not GPL. I got the source of an early version (and permissions to use) from the author.
Ryan Benitez wrote:Has there been any talk about focusing the efforts of the Toga contributors on another engine that is more modern such as Glaurung?
?
Could you please elaborate a bit on the above? I don't think I have understood what you are trying to say.
Sorry, I am not a native english speaker.
Sure, Toga is based on the data structures of Fruit 2.1. Fruit 2.1 is a very good base with a low bug count but with 64bit cpu's and the many uses for bitboards an engine such as Glaurung that is also a GPL engine might make for a better platform for people to modify, tune, and improve with a Toga like project.
When will we see a brand new Toga Engine? What happens here?
Regards,
Eduard
Someone who create "brand new" toga engine cannot be called programmer, they're ... cloner.
This is totaly incorrect....
A can of worms regards,
Dr.D
_Why incorrect? They know next to nothing except how to use an editor and how to compile.
_They even can't create a strong engine by their own.
_No,you can't change the source and add +100 Elo boost to the original open sourced program if you don't have programming skills....
I for myself can't do that....even if you give me an editor and teach me how to compile....
_Again I disagree....take for example the author of Cyclone....he began to write his own chess engine from scratch and I sure he'll deliver a pretty strong one....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Damir wrote:and how about Faile1.4.4 and Sjeng 7.0?
I heared Sjeng 7.0 too should be similar to Faile1.4.4?
Should it be considered a clone too, if you look on the source ?
Sjeng was a GPL engine as was Faile. My understanding is that Deep Sjeng has no code in common with Faile. Fruit 2.3+ is non GPL with full rights given to me by Fabien. The copyright issues have been clarified with FSF because Fruit 2.1 is now owned by the FSF.
Thanks Ryan for the clarification
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Ryan Benitez wrote:Has there been any talk about focusing the efforts of the Toga contributors on another engine that is more modern such as Glaurung?
?
Could you please elaborate a bit on the above? I don't think I have understood what you are trying to say.
Sorry, I am not a native english speaker.
In other words he suggests to use Glaurung as a base to make strong derivatives the same way Fruit was used to make strong Toga's....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
In other words he suggests to use Glaurung as a base to make strong derivatives the same way Fruit was used to make strong Toga's....
This would be a really good idea Glaurung is a super engine and very well written....you just need to open an editor and fun is assured, and if you are lucky you even don't need to know how to compile because Jim, very kindly, does this for you.
Ryan Benitez wrote:Has there been any talk about focusing the efforts of the Toga contributors on another engine that is more modern such as Glaurung?
Hello Ryan,
It is good to see you posting. You asked this question of Denis and he should be the TDBB spokesman, I am not really a contributor to any code there. But my personal opinion; I don't think "we" or the Toga Developers at TDDB have the manpower to do much in that direction right now. I wrote at the TDDB just yesterday that I don't see myself as a programmer to contribute much for now so Peters assessment there is not disputed. Well I've said so often enough.
About Glaurung's more modern structures as an example for Toga, some of the most enviable of that, just to name one thing is I think the better scaling that Glaurung has with more processors. That comes to mind first. Also of course, Tord's excellent documentation, and the better interface of selective search between the base search and quiescence search. There are many more things I should mention to do Tord's program a little justice and I have only seen a little.
YBW
I know Tord would argue it is very little work to implement YBW in some form if you look at the examples, but I think he is a bit optimistic about what other people can do. I still get lost in the Critical section This is more the area of Bill and he has his own ideas to at least improve the basic shared hash search from Toga (ABDADA I think this is called, in various forms).
bitboards
Actually I think it is one of the important and charming characteristics of Toga that it is still built on 32 bit structures. I imagine that you and Fabien had to change a lot when you implemented bitboards in Fruit, Ryan? If you test with 32-bits operating systems, for Windows, at least here in the Netherlands, 64-bit Vista is not yet standard with new PCs, so in that case bitboards do not really offer much of a speed advantage. I believe you develop in Linux Ryan and for Mac OSX programmers like Tord it is of course more natural to take advantage of 64 bits operating systems. But in Windows XP 32 bits it is not so attractive knowing that you will always be slower using bitboards The holy grail here would of course be finding out where Rybka gets its very good speed-up going from 32 bits to 64 bits... Basically I assume it is bitboards and it has to do with the search but that is not helping very much
Regards, Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
This is more the area of Bill and he has his own ideas to at least improve the basic shared hash search from Toga (ABDADA I think this is called, in various forms).