TalkChess.com

Hi all, hello Programmers!

When will we see a brand new Toga Engine? What happens here?

Regards,
Eduard

Edward German wrote:Hi all, hello Programmers!

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.

Peter Aloysius wrote:

Edward German wrote:Hi all, hello Programmers!

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

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

Peter Aloysius wrote:

Edward German wrote:Hi all, hello Programmers!

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

It's frustrating sometimes for programmers of original engines to see in the rating list a lot of derivative engines ahead of his engine. What's worst is that some of those testers even prioritize them.

You know the feeling that you have worked thousand of hours with your engine and it will be taken for granted because some new author of a derivative has decided to release another version that is just a few lines different than the original version.

I'm not against the development of those derivatives but at least they should have combined there efforts and just release under one name so as not to pollute the rating lists. There's no point of having 5 different named engines with just a few lines of difference in the code.

Edsel Apostol wrote:

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

Peter Aloysius wrote:

Edward German wrote:Hi all, hello Programmers!

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

It's frustrating sometimes for programmers of original engines to see in the rating list a lot of derivative engines ahead of his engine. What's worst is that some of those testers even prioritize them.

You know the feeling that you have worked thousand of hours with your engine and it will be taken for granted because some new author of a derivative has decided to release another version that is just a few lines different than the original version.

I'm not against the development of those derivatives but at least they should have combined there efforts and just release under one name so as not to pollute the rating lists. There's no point of having 5 different named engines with just a few lines of difference in the code.

Hi Edsel,
Here I can't agree more
BTW,such a project is being discussed already in the Toga developers forum,don't know what happened till now though....
Dr.D

When will we see a brand new Toga Engine? What happens here?

There will be no new Toga engine unless there is a major revamp on the code that is fit for a release. Sorry Ed.

Someone who create "brand new" toga engine cannot be called programmer, they're ... cloner.

Yes. the term is accepted as such, as Toga is a verified clone . It's just a term we have to accept and live with. I can't blame you and can't blame the Toga developers either. That's a big issue that will never end. Some people start from scratch, while some start from something already done. Toga followed GPL and you can't deny anyone abiding by this rule, as it's generally the way open-source softwares develop.

It's frustrating sometimes for programmers of original engines to see in the rating list a lot of derivative engines ahead of his engine. What's worst is that some of those testers even prioritize them.

You know the feeling that you have worked thousand of hours with your engine and it will be taken for granted because some new author of a derivative has decided to release another version that is just a few lines different than the original version.

I'm not against the development of those derivatives but at least they should have combined there efforts and just release under one name so as not to pollute the rating lists. There's no point of having 5 different named engines with just a few lines of difference in the code.

Ed,

Kabayan, the feeling is understandable. I agree that the Toga released after 5c were only a few lines different but the only problem I saw there was the tagging and versioning. It should have been a continuous release under one name. But that was not taken into account at that period.

I for one is already 'drowning' of the various Togas we have. At the least, most are already at TDDB and we're trying our best to combine efforts to make it into 'one account' as you stated. If you ask me, this is my quest right now.

Thanks,

Denis

Hi,
I have tried to show in our list that there is no significant improvement to bee seen since Toga II 1.4 beta 5c: 2861 +-14.
The strongest one Cyclone 3.4 is with 2876 +-26 around 15 points ahead.

The latest (private) Fruit engines tops them all, but unfortunately Ryan did not give them free till now.

Werner wrote: The latest (private) Fruit engines tops them all, but unfortunately Ryan did not give them free till now.

Isn't that a GPL violation? Anyone who got the beta should be able to request the source and redistribute it.

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

Werner wrote: The latest (private) Fruit engines tops them all, but unfortunately Ryan did not give them free till now.

Isn't that a GPL violation? Anyone who got the beta should be able to request the source and redistribute it.

I am not the specialist in GPL rules, but I think: no
as Fruit 2.2 and 2.2.1 have been commercial and till then no source code has been published.
All newer Fruit versions have been developped by Ryan alone based on that version.

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

Werner wrote: The latest (private) Fruit engines tops them all, but unfortunately Ryan did not give them free till now.

Isn't that a GPL violation? Anyone who got the beta should be able to request the source and redistribute it.

No, the engine in question is not the derivative of Fruit but the actual Fruit itself, and Ryan is the co-author alongside Fabien. Fruit 2.2.1 went commercial and was no longer open source. After awhile, it went non-commercial with version 2.3 but still closed source and that version was from Ryan/Fabien. Now all the remaining betas of Fruit subsequent to 2.3 are closed source ever since.