Olivier Deville wrote:.
I do care about what is posted on his website, and I would never test an engine under these conditions. Why don't you request the insults to be removed before you start any test ? At least I would do that if I were in your shoes.
Olivier
Take a look. Treating people with a modicum of respect works sometimes.
Cheers,
Graham.
I'll ask him if he will remove the offensive comments.
Cheers,
Graham.
Yes more lies...
Olivier
I was looking at the wrong part of the website and saw the comments after I posted. I will ask Norm if he is prepared to remove them.
OK thanks Graham
Olivier
Well all names just disappeared, but the mud is still there... Do you feel it is enough ?
The issues of boycotting nasty authors and how to treat clones are quite independent, IMO. An author of an original engine could engage in a vendetta against some of us, and put insulting rants on his website.
Someone that produced a derivative, and never made a secret of it, could be a nice guy.
If I would run any engines of either of such authors, depends purely on if these engines serve my purpose. If a derivative could do something the original can't, and that something is just what I need, I would run that engine no matter how nasty that author is. That he is nasty is bad enough, but it must not interfere with my own goals. I would not go to extra length to make him benifit from my work, though. So I can understand the view of testers when they see their testing purely as a service to help the engine authors.
If an open-source derivative is far stronger than the original, it might be of interest to know how strong exactly it is. Not just in the interest of the author of the derivative, but in the interest of the author of the original work as well, as he could learn from the derivative which were the weak points of his program that need to be beefed up. And to others, to learn which techniques are successful and which not.
We should also realise that releasing something under GPL is actually an _invitation_ to others to create derivatives. GPL projects are by nature group efforts of a very diffuse group. If A writes a engine, and releases it under the GPL, and B takes the code and expands on it in a significant way, really making it better. Now suppose A wants to enter his original version in a tournament, and B does want to enter his improved version. Does B need explicit permission from A to enter it? I don't think he does: that permission was already implied by the GPL, and the GPL is such that it cannot be revoked. Would the TD want both engines to run? Likely not, as one is just an old version of the other. Should he prefer the (weaker) original over the improved "clone"? I see no reason for that, as in general we would not prefer weaker, older versions of an engine over newer, stronger ones. (It would be a different matter if both were developed in different directions, and equally strong.) If, based on the merits of the engine, we would prefer the "clone", it would be logical to accept the clone, as an entry authored by the team A+B, and refuse the original by A. Even if A would prefer it differentl. Because A gave up his rights to shut out B from the team effort at the very moment he released his program under the GPL.
If you want to keep any say of who is in "your team", you should simply not release under the GPL. It is easy enough to release under license conditions that forbid making derivatives, or allows it, but forbid entering such derivatives in tournaments. They did choose not to do that, in an irrevokable way.
Last edited by hgm on Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Olivier Deville wrote:.
I do care about what is posted on his website, and I would never test an engine under these conditions. Why don't you request the insults to be removed before you start any test ? At least I would do that if I were in your shoes.
Olivier
Take a look. Treating people with a modicum of respect works sometimes.
Cheers,
Graham.
I'll ask him if he will remove the offensive comments.
Cheers,
Graham.
Yes more lies...
Olivier
I was looking at the wrong part of the website and saw the comments after I posted. I will ask Norm if he is prepared to remove them.
OK thanks Graham
Olivier
Well all names just disappeared, but the mud is still there... Do you feel it is enough ?
hgm wrote:
We should also realise that releasing something under GPL is actually an _invitation_ to others to create derivatives. GPL projects are by nature group efforts of a very diffuse group.
Well, for chess engines it is best to be not very diffuse. I would guess that the best number for a team is three people
Ok, apart from the jokes, I would say that we were really lucky with Stockfish because not only we tried to improve with some success on an already super engine like Glaurung, but at the end the original author choose to join the Stockfish team and continue developing of this derivate engine as his _main_ engine.
My personal opinion is that I had another confirmation that Tord is really a special one, and I am not speaking only for his great technical skills.
Now with Tord in the team the next version will be really a super version !
Bill Rogers wrote:Hello Chris
If Rolf is wrong and you claim that there is another program that is stronger than Rybka then why don't you name it instead of just blowing hot air and demeaning a fellow member.
Although the quote is not exactly the right fit. Put your money where you mouth is" in a round about way fits.
Bill
Bill,
I can tell you with 100% accuracy that there is something out there stronger than Rybka.
The reason for not naming it is simple. If the cloners don't know about it yet, then the computer chess scene is better off with them not knowing about it for as long as humanly possible.
In my own testing, it beat Rybka 3, +46 =11 -13.
Do you really want to see 100 Rybka clones out there? Or people showing up out of the blue with 3000+ rated programs and trying to enter them into the CCT or ACCA? Or the WCCC IPCCC Leiden?
It would kill this sport in a heart beat. Those that do know about it are keeping in close to their chests and are purely using good judgement for the betterment of our hobby.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
Graham Banks wrote:I am all for consistency. Why do we allow equally guilty or worse guilty cloners to remain as members of CCC, knowing full well what they've done? Isn't that sort of condoning their actions?
Who is worse than Norm? He tried to make a clone commercial, and then after getting caught clones again. Then he put up a bunch of nonsense on his website. I can't think of anybody who is equally or more guilty.
After throwing so much mud on Norman it is interesting to see that some people think that some mud wont get stuck on them to.
For days nothing but attacks mostly by the same people who have done and repeated the same things just like on the previous discussions about Norman and Cyclone.
Maybe because Norman make good chess engines.
If Cyclone was bad I don't think these discussions would exist.
Can't you guys just knock it of and go and discus some other chess topics.
Norman has admitted his mistakes, paid his dues and it is time to except him again in the chess community under condition that his follows the rules that exist.
I have personally enjoyed Cyclone and will continue to use Norman's engines and support him as long as I know that he is doing things legally.
My respect for those other people who have shown common sense and who have defended chess programing that is producing new and stronger engines.
solis wrote:After throwing so much mud on Norman it is interesting to see that some people think that some mud wont get stuck on them to.
For days nothing but attacks mostly by the same people who have done and repeated the same things just like on the previous discussions about Norman and Cyclone.
Maybe because Norman make good chess engines.
If Cyclone was bad I don't think these discussions would exist.
Can't you guys just knock it of and go and discus some other chess topics.
Norman has admitted his mistakes, paid his dues and it is time to except him again in the chess community under condition that his follows the rules that exist.
I have personally enjoyed Cyclone and will continue to use Norman's engines and support him as long as I know that he is doing things legally.
My respect for those other people who have shown common sense and who have defended chess programing that is producing new and stronger engines.
Misha
You are right Misha.
Gens una sumus.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."
